Search Results

Search found 17047 results on 682 pages for 'architecture design patt'.

Page 47/682 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

• Architecture for multiple web apps and databases.

  - by Matt

  We used to have only one web app, but now we are breaking it down into multiple ones. Each one will be packaged as separate product (web app) Some have things in common some do not. It was originally coded with php and using Postgresql 8.4 and CodeIgniter as the framework. I am looking for some good suggestions on how I should set up multiple web apps. They all have their own somewhat unique data. Some data in the databases can be common to some apps but not all. All the apps will be on one server and will have some kind of API to manipulate data. I want it to be structured such that one User account can access any product they purchase. (kinda like google accounts) I do not know if its a good idea to have multiple database, or just to have one big one. eventually we will be using S3 for some videos and other images. Your thoughts and suggestions are much appreciated.

  Read the article

• Java Architecture Decision !!

  - by santiagobasulto

  Hi everybody! I'm developing a medium Java app, and i'm facing a small problem due to my lack of expirience. I've a custom DAO, which gets "Article" objects from the DataBase. I've the Article class, and the DAO has a method called getArticle(int id), this method returns an Article. The Article has a Category object, and i'm using lazy loading. So, when i request for an Article Category (Article a = new Article(); a.getCategory();) the Article class gets the Category from the DAO and then returns it. I'm now thinking to cache it, so when i request multiple times to an Article's category, the database is only queried one time. My question is: where should i put that cache? I can put it on the Article class (in the DTO), or i can put it on the DAO class. What do you say? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Design pattern: static function call with input/output containers?

  - by Pavlo Dyban

  I work for a company in software research department. We use algorithms from our real software and wrap them so that we can use them for prototyping. Every time an algorithm interface changes, we need to adapt our wrappers respectively. Recently all algorithms have been refactored in such a manner that instead of accepting many different inputs and returning outputs via referenced parameters, they now accept one input data container and one output data container (the latter is passed by reference). Algorithm interface is limited to a static function call like that: class MyAlgorithm{ static bool calculate(MyAlgorithmInput input, MyAlgorithmOutput &output); } This is actually a very powerful design, though I have never seen it in a C++ programming environment before. Changes in the number of parameters and their data types are now encapsulated and they don't change the algorithm callback. In the latest algorithm which I have developed I used the same scheme. Now I want to know if this is a popular design pattern and what it is called.

  Read the article

• Reporting system for organization. Architecture advise required

  - by Andrew Florko

  We have several legacy & 3'd-party systems in organization that use several RDBMS vendors (& more specific data storages). Cross-system data reporting (as well as extra-reports that are not implemented in 3'd-party systems) is required with charts and population of templates (winword, excel). Reporting system is visioned as intranet web-site with custom user access to reports. We expect ~50 reports per day. Would you suggest to use BizTalk or any other integration software if commercial-department doesn't plan to buy anything expensive. Would you suggest to create centralized data storage for reporting that is populated regularly or rely on on-demand services that providers always up-to-request data. Thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• Do AOP violate layered architecture for enterprise apps?

  - by redzedi

  The question(as stated in the title) comes to me as recently i was looking at Spring MVC 3.1 with annotation support and also considering DDD for an upcoming project. In the new Spring any POJO with its business methods can be annotated to act as controller, all the concerns that i would have addressed within a Controller class can be expressed exclusively through the annotations. So, technically i can take any class and wire it to act as controller , the java code is free from any controller specific code, hence the java code could deal with things like checking security , starting txn etc. So will such a class belong to Presentation or Application layer ?? Taking that argument even further , we can pull out things like security, txn mgmt and express them through annotations , thus the java code is now that of the domain object. Will that mean we have fused together the 2 layers? Please clarify

  Read the article

• How to deal with OOP design problems in interviews?

  - by haps10

  This is a question where I seek guidance from fellow/senior developers to get into my dream company - it's a pioneer in OOP and Agile. I've already failed once to clear an interview. One part I feel most challenging is to come up with a proper Object Oriented design(classes, interfaces, methods, interactions etc.) in a very short time for certain situations like Pacman, Game Of Life and so on. As the problems are unprecedented ones - my approach is mostly to try different things and then make decisions - which they feel is not clear and not what they expect from a developer with 5+ years of experience. I've already studied a few books on patterns, OOP - it didn't help me much and I think it'll take a bit more than that. Could some one please guide on what specifically shall I practice so that I can do better at design problems as above. I want to refine my approach and have a better thought process.

  Read the article

• jQuery plugin for Event Driven Architecture?

  - by leeand00

  Are there any Event Driven Architecture jQuery plugins? Step 1: Subscribing The subscribers subscribe to the event handler in the middle, and pass in a callback method, as well as the name of the event they are listening for... i.e. The two green subscribers will be listening for p0 events. And the blue subscriber will be listening for p1 events. Step 2: The p0 event is fired by another component to the Event Handler A p0 event is fired to the Event Handler The event handler notifies it's subscribers of the event, calling the callback methods they specified when they subscribed in Step 1: Subscribing. Note that the blue subscriber is not notified because it was not listening for p0 events. Step 3: The p1 event is fired a component to the Event Handler The p1 event is fired by another component Just as before except that now the blue subscriber receives the event through its callback and the other two green subscribers do not receive the event. Images by leeand00, on Flickr I can't seem to find one, but my guess is that they just call it something else in Javascript/jquery Also is there a name for this pattern? Because it isn't just a basic publisher/subscriber, it has to be called something else I would think.

  Read the article

• UX Design Principles Pluralsight course review

  - by pluginbaby

  I've just finished the "Creating User Experiences: Fundamental Design Principles" course on Pluralsight, I am glad I took it, and here is why you should. The course is held by Billy Hollis, an internationally known author and speaker focused on user experience design. It was published in May 2012, so it is quite fresh (You’ll hear some reference to XAML, even if the content is not focused on any particular technology). I think what I liked the most about this course is the fact that Billy is not just imposing design ideas and pushing them in your throat (which would be too confronting for us developers, even if he was right), he spends a fair share amount of time explaining each topics, and illustrate them with great metaphors. If you are a minimum open minded you should get great value out of this course. Billy makes you think outside the box, he encourages you to use your right side brain, and understand design principles by simply looking at what’s around us (physical objects, nature, …). During the course he refers several time to "don't make me think" a book on UX design, which is about giving confidence to users, by making it easier for them to achieve their goals when using your app. Billy thinks that every developer can participate in elaborating good design when building software, not only designers should be involved. Get away of the easy path "let's build functional stuff for now and we will hire a designer later if we have time and budget". The course is also live and interactive as the author suggests that you do some live exercises during each module. He actually makes you realize and understand by yourself the need for change. We’re in a new era of software and devices, where grids and menus aren't enough. You can’t remain satisfied by just making things possible, you need to make them easier for your users. Understanding some fundamental design principles will help. This course can definitely be followed by any developers who wants to improve user experience of software they are working on, and I definitely recommend it.

  Read the article

• Construction Paper, Legos, and Architectural Modeling

  I can remember as a kid playing with construction paper and Legos to explore my imagination. Through my exploration I was able to build airplanes, footballs, guns, and more, out of paper. Additionally I could create entire cities, robots, or anything else I could image out of Legos.  These toys, I now realize were in fact tools that gave me an opportunity to explore my ideas in the physical world through the use of modeling.  My imagination was allowed to run wild as I, unknowingly at the time, made design decisions that directly affected the models I was building from the raw materials.  To prove my point further, I can remember building a paper airplane that seemed to go nowhere when I tried to throw it. So I decided to attach a paper clip to the plane before I decided to throw it the next time to test my concept that by adding more weight to the plane that it would fly better and for longer distances. The paper airplane allowed me to model my design decision through the use of creating an artifact in that I created a paper airplane that was carrying extra weight through the incorporation of the paper clip in to the design. Also, I remember using Legos to build all sorts of creations, and these creations became artifacts of my imagination. As I further and further defined my Lego creations through the process of playing I was able to create elaborate artifacts of my imagination. These artifacts represented design decision I had made in the evolution of my creation through my child like design process. In some form or fashion the artifacts I created as a kid are very similar to the artifacts that I create when I model a software architectural concept or a software design in that the process of making decisions is directly translated in to a tangible model in the form of an architectural model. Architectural models have been defined as artifacts that depict design decisions of a system’s architecture.  The act of creating architectural models is the act of architectural modeling. Furthermore, architectural modeling is the process of creating a physical model based architectural concepts and documenting these design decisions. In the process of creating models, the standard notation used is Architectural modeling notation. This notation is the primary method of capturing the essence of design decisions regarding architecture.  Modeling notations can vary based on the need and intent of a project; typically they range from natural language to a diagram based notation. Currently, Unified Markup Language (UML) is the industry standard in terms of architectural modeling notation  because allows for architectures to be defined through a series of boxes, lines, arrows and other basic symbols that encapsulate design designs in to virtual components, connectors, configurations and interfaces.  Furthermore UML allows for additional break down of models through the use of natural language as to explain each section of the model in plain English. One of the major factors in architectural modeling is to define what is to be modeled. As a basic rule of thumb, I tend to model architecture based on the complexity of systems or sub sub-systems of architecture. Another key factor is the level of detail that is actually needed for a model. For example if I am modeling a system for a CEO to view then the low level details will be omitted. In comparison, if I was modeling a system for another engineer to actually implement I would include as much detailed information as I could to help the engineer implement my design.

  Read the article

• Do your own design jobs and make it look professional

  - by Webgui

  Looks and design is becoming more and more important for customers and organizations event when we deal with internal enterprise applications. However,  many web developers who work on business apps end up not investing resources on the design. The reason may be that they ran out of time so with their client's pressure there was no choice but to skip past the design process. In some cases, especially in sall software houses, there are no trained professional designers and the developers have to do both jobs. Since designing web applications can be very complex and requires mastering several languages and concepts, unless a big budget was allocated to the project it is very hard to produce a professional custom design. For that exact reasons, Visual WebGui integrated Point & Click Design Tools within its Web/Cloud Development Platform. Those tools allow developers to customize the UI look of the applications they build in a visual way that is fairly simple and doesn't require coding or mastering HTML, CSS and JavaScript in order to design. The development tools also allow professional designers easier work interface with the developers and quicly create new skins. So if you are interested in getting your design job done much easier, you should probably tune in for about an hour and find out how. Click here to register: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/740450625

  Read the article

• Could I be going crazy with Event Handlers? Am I going the "wrong way" with my design?

  - by sensae

  I guess I've decided that I really like event handlers. I may be suffering a bit from analysis paralysis, but I'm concerned about making my design unwieldy or running into some other unforeseen consequence to my design decisions. My game engine currently does basic sprite-based rendering with a panning overhead camera. My design looks a bit like this: SceneHandler Contains a list of classes that implement the SceneListener interface (currently only Sprites). Calls render() once per tick, and sends onCameraUpdate(); messages to SceneListeners. InputHandler Polls the input once per tick, and sends a simple "onKeyPressed" message to InputListeners. I have a Camera InputListener which holds a SceneHandler instance and triggers updateCamera(); events based on what the input is. AgentHandler Calls default actions on any Agents (AI) once per tick, and will check a stack for any new events that are registered, dispatching them to specific Agents as needed. So I have basic sprite objects that can move around a scene and use rudimentary steering behaviors to travel. I've gotten onto collision detection, and this is where I'm not sure the direction my design is going is good. Is it a good practice to have many, small event handlers? I imagine going the way I am that I'd have to implement some kind of CollisionHandler. Would I be better off with a more consolidated EntityHandler which handles AI, collision updates, and other entity interactions in one class? Or will I be fine just implementing many different event handling subsystems which pass messages to each other based on what kind of event it is? Should I write an EntityHandler which is simply responsible for coordinating all these sub event handlers? I realize in some cases, such as my InputHandler and SceneHandler, those are very specific types of events. A large portion of my game code won't care about input, and a large portion won't care about updates that happen purely in the rendering of the scene. Thus I feel my isolation of those systems is justified. However, I'm asking this question specifically approaching game logic type events.

  Read the article

• Free Oracle Special Edition eBooks - Cloud Architecture & Enterprise Cloud

  - by Thanos

  Cloud computing can improve your business agility, lower operating costs, and speed innovation. The key to making it work is the architecture. Learn how to define your architectural requirements and get started on your path to cloud computing with the free oracle special edition e-book, Cloud Architecture for Dummies.   Topics covered in this quick reference guide include: Cloud architecture principles and guidelines Scoping your project and choosing your deployment model Moving toward implementation with vertically integrated engineered systems Learn how to architect and model your cloud implementation to drive efficiency and leverage economies of scale. For more information, visit oracle.com/cloud and our cloud services at cloud.oracle.com Specifically Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) is critical to the success of many enterprises. Want to build a private Cloud infrastructure and cut down IT costs? Learn more about Oracle's highly integrated infrastructure software and hardware to help you architect and deploy a cloud infrastructure that is optimized for the needs of your enterprise from day one. Download the free e-book of Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure for Dummies to: Realize the benefits of consolidation with the added cloud capabilities Simplify deployments and reduce risks with tested and proven guidelines Achieve up to 50% lower TCO than comparable multi-vendor alternatives Choosing the right infrastructure technologies is essential to capitalizing on the benefits of cloud computing. Oracle Optimized Solution for Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure helps identify the right hardware and software stack and provides configuration guidelines for your cloud. With this book, you come to understand Enterprise Cloud Infrastructure and find out how to jumpstart your IaaS cloud plans. You also discover Oracle Optimized Solutions and learn how integration testing and proven best practices maximize your IT investments. In addition, you see how to architect and deploy your IaaS cloud to drive down costs and improve performance, how to understand and select the right private cloud strategy for you, what key cloud infrastructure elements are and how to use them to achieve your business goals, and more. For more information, visit oracle.com/oos.

  Read the article

• IoT? Time for Enterprise Architecture

  - by OTN ArchBeat

  Of course you've been listening to the latest OTN ArchBeat Podcast on the challenges and opportunities in the Internet of Things. If so, you'll also be interested in ZDNet blogger Joe McKendricks' recent post, Will the 'Internet of Things' make CIOs' jobs harder?. In that post McKendrick offers this important bit of advice that will certainly have architects saying "I told you so." Enterprises need to develop architectural approaches to the management of data. Meaning the development of repeatable processes to source, ingest, transform and store information. For years, IT managers simply bought more hardware and addressed data with on-off integration projects. Now it's time for enterprise architecture. IoT is an important new phase in the evolution of enterprise IT. Challenging? You bet! But meeting any such challenge requires big, broad thinking and planning. In that context Enterprise Architecture has always been important. But as IoT gains traction and speed, enterprise architecture should be top of mind for all concerned.

  Read the article

• How Service Component Architecture (SCA) Can Be Incorporated Into Existing Enterprise Systems

  After viewing Rob High’s presentation “The SOA Component Model” hosted on InfoQ.com, I can foresee how Service Component Architecture (SCA) can be incorporated in to an existing enterprise. According to IBM’s DeveloperWorks website, SCA is a set of conditions which outline a model for constructing applications/systems using a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). In addition, SCA builds on open standards such as Web services. In the future, I can easily see how some large IT shops could potently divide development teams or work groups up into Component/Data Object Groups, and Standard Development Groups. The Component/Data Object Group would only work on creating and maintaining components that are reused throughout the entire enterprise. The Standard Development Group would work on new and existing projects that incorporate the use of various components to accomplish various business tasks. In my opinion the incorporation of SCA in to any IT department will initially slow down the number of new features developed due to the time needed to create the new and loosely-coupled components. However once a company becomes more mature in its SCA process then the number of program features developed will greatly increase. I feel this is due to the fact that the loosely-coupled components needed in order to add the new features will already be built and ready to incorporate into any new development feature request. References: BEA Systems, Cape Clear Software, IBM, Interface21, IONA Technologies PLC, Oracle, Primeton Technologies Ltd, Progress Software, Red Hat Inc., Rogue Wave Software, SAP AG, Siebel Systems, Software AG, Sun Microsystems, Sybase, TIBCO Software Inc. (2006). Service Component Architecture. Retrieved 11 27, 2011, from DeveloperWorks: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/specification/ws-sca/ High, R. (2007). The SOA Component Model. Retrieved 11 26, 2011, from InfoQ: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/rob-high-sca-sdo-soa-programming-model

  Read the article

• What is good practice in .NET system architecture design concerning multiple models and aggregates

  - by BuzzBubba

  I'm designing a larger enterprise architecture and I'm in a doubt about how to separate the models and design those. There are several points I'd like suggestions for: - models to define - way to define models Currently my idea is to define: Core (domain) model Repositories to get data to that domain model from a database or other store Business logic model that would contain business logic, validation logic and more specific versions of forms of data retrieval methods View models prepared for specifically formated data output that would be parsed by views of different kind (web, silverlight, etc). For the first model I'm puzzled at what to use and how to define the mode. Should this model entities contain collections and in what form? IList, IEnumerable or IQueryable collections? - I'm thinking of immutable collections which IEnumerable is, but I'd like to avoid huge data collections and to offer my Business logic layer access with LINQ expressions so that query trees get executed at Data level and retrieve only really required data for situations like the one when I'm retrieving a very specific subset of elements amongst thousands or hundreds of thousands. What if I have an item with several thousands of bids? I can't just make an IEnumerable collection of those on the model and then retrieve an item list in some Repository method or even Business model method. Should it be IQueryable so that I actually pass my queries to Repository all the way from the Business logic model layer? Should I just avoid collections in my domain model? Should I void only some collections? Should I separate Domain model and BusinessLogic model or integrate those? Data would be dealt trough repositories which would use Domain model classes. Should repositories be used directly using only classes from domain model like data containers? This is an example of what I had in mind: So, my Domain objects would look like (e.g.) public class Item { public string ItemName { get; set; } public int Price { get; set; } public bool Available { get; set; } private IList<Bid> _bids; public IQueryable<Bid> Bids { get { return _bids.AsQueryable(); } private set { _bids = value; } } public AddNewBid(Bid newBid) { _bids.Add(new Bid {.... } } Where Bid would be defined as a normal class. Repositories would be defined as data retrieval factories and used to get data into another (Business logic) model which would again be used to get data to ViewModels which would then be rendered by different consumers. I would define IQueryable interfaces for all aggregating collections to get flexibility and minimize data retrieved from real data store. Or should I make Domain Model "anemic" with pure data store entities and all collections define for business logic model? One of the most important questions is, where to have IQueryable typed collections? - All the way from Repositories to Business model or not at all and expose only solid IList and IEnumerable from Repositories and deal with more specific queries inside Business model, but have more finer grained methods for data retrieval within Repositories. So, what do you think? Have any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Considerations Before Hiring Logo Design Services

  These days, hiring a logo design service is not easy. Just enter a keyword "logo design" in a search engine and you will see thousands of result pages full of online logo design services. Certainly, ... [Author: Gisselle Gloria - Web Design and Development - October 05, 2009]

  Read the article

• Register Game Object Components in Game Subsystems? (Component-based Game Object design)

  - by topright

  I'm creating a component-based game object system. Some tips: GameObject is simply a list of Components. There are GameSubsystems. For example, rendering, physics etc. Each GameSubsystem contains pointers to some of Components. GameSubsystem is a very powerful and flexible abstraction: it represents any slice (or aspect) of the game world. There is a need in a mechanism of registering Components in GameSubsystems (when GameObject is created and composed). There are 4 approaches: 1: Chain of responsibility pattern. Every Component is offered to every GameSubsystem. GameSubsystem makes a decision which Components to register (and how to organize them). For example, GameSubsystemRender can register Renderable Components. pro. Components know nothing about how they are used. Low coupling. A. We can add new GameSubsystem. For example, let's add GameSubsystemTitles that registers all ComponentTitle and guarantees that every title is unique and provides interface to quering objects by title. Of course, ComponentTitle should not be rewrited or inherited in this case. B. We can reorganize existing GameSubsystems. For example, GameSubsystemAudio, GameSubsystemRender, GameSubsystemParticleEmmiter can be merged into GameSubsystemSpatial (to place all audio, emmiter, render Components in the same hierarchy and use parent-relative transforms). con. Every-to-every check. Very innefficient. con. Subsystems know about Components. 2: Each Subsystem searches for Components of specific types. pro. Better performance than in Approach 1. con. Subsystems still know about Components. 3: Component registers itself in GameSubsystem(s). We know at compile-time that there is a GameSubsystemRenderer, so let's ComponentImageRender will call something like GameSubsystemRenderer::register(ComponentRenderBase*). pro. Performance. No unnecessary checks as in Approach 1. con. Components are badly coupled with GameSubsystems. 4: Mediator pattern. GameState (that contains GameSubsystems) can implement registerComponent(Component*). pro. Components and GameSubystems know nothing about each other. con. In C++ it would look like ugly and slow typeid-switch. Questions: Which approach is better and mostly used in component-based design? What Practice says? Any suggestions about implementation of Approach 4? Thank you.

  Read the article

• How can I find a list of all SSE instructions? What happens if a CPU doesn't support SSE?

  - by Blastcore

  So I've been reading about how processors work. Now I'm on the instructions (SSE, SSE2, etc) stuff. (Which is pretty interesting). I have lot of questions (I've been reading this stuff on Wikipedia): I've saw the names of some instructions that were added on SSE, however there's no explanation about any of them (Maybe SSE4? They're not even listed on Wikipedia). Where can I read about what they do? How do I know which of these instructions are being used? If we do know which are being used, let's say I'm doing a comparison, (This may be the most stupid question I've ever asked, I don't know about assembly, though) Is it possible to directly use the instruction on an assembly code? (I've been looking at this: http://asm.inightmare.org/opcodelst/index.php?op=CMP) How does the processor interpret the instructions? What would happen if I had a processor without any of the SSE instructions? (I suppose in the case we want to do a comparison, we wouldn't be able to, right?)

  Read the article

• SQL Rally Relational Database Design Pre-Con Preview

  - by drsql

  On May 9, 2012, I will be presenting a pre-con session at the SQL Rally in Dallas, TX on relational database design. The fact is, database design is a topic that demands more than a simple one hour session to really do it right. So in my Relational Database Design Workshop, we will have seven times the amount of time in the typical session, giving us time to cover our topics in a bit more detail, look at a lot more designs/code, and even get some time to do some design as a group. Our topics will...(read more)

  Read the article

• Software Architecture Analysis Method (SAAM)

  Software Architecture Analysis Method (SAAM) is a methodology used to determine how specific application quality attributes were achieved and how possible changes in the future will affect quality attributes based on hypothetical cases studies. Common quality attributes that can be utilized by this methodology include modifiability, robustness, portability, and extensibility. Quality Attribute: Application Modifiability The Modifiability quality attribute refers to how easy it changing the system in the future will be. This to me is a very open-ended attribute because a business could decide to transform a Point of Sale (POS) system in to a Lead Tracking system overnight. (Yes, this did actually happen to me) In order for SAAM to be properly applied for checking this attribute specific hypothetical case studies need to be created and review for the modifiability attribute due to the fact that various scenarios would return various results based on the amount of changes. In the case of the POS change out a payment gateway or adding an additional payment would have scored very high in comparison to changing the system over to a lead management system. I personally would evaluate this quality attribute based on the S.O.I.L.D Principles of software design. I have found from my experience the use of S.O.I.L.D in software design allows for the adoption of changes within a system. Quality Attribute: Application Robustness The Robustness quality attribute refers to how an application handles the unexpected. The unexpected can be defined but is not limited to anything not anticipated in the originating design of the system. For example: Bad Data, Limited to no network connectivity, invalid permissions, or any unexpected application exceptions. I would personally evaluate this quality attribute based on how the system handled the exceptions. Robustness Considerations Did the system stop or did it handle the unexpected error? Did the system log the unexpected error for future debugging? What message did the user receive about the error? Quality Attribute: Application Portability The Portability quality attribute refers to the ease of porting an application to run in a new operating system or device. For example, It is much easier to alter an ASP.net website to be accessible by a PC, Mac, IPhone, Android Phone, Mini PC, or Table in comparison to desktop application written in VB.net because a lot more work would be involved to get the desktop app to the point where it would be viable to port the application over to the various environments and devices. I would personally evaluate this quality attribute based on each new environment for which the hypothetical case study identifies. I would pay particular attention to the following items. Portability Considerations Hardware Dependencies Operating System Dependencies Data Source Dependencies Network Dependencies and Availabilities  Quality Attribute: Application Extensibility The Extensibility quality attribute refers to the ease of adding new features to an existing application without impacting existing functionality. I would personally evaluate this quality attribute based on each new environment for the following Extensibility  Considerations Hard coded Variables versus Configurable variables Application Documentation (External Documents and Codebase Documentation.) The use of Solid Design Principles

  Read the article

• Cross-Cultural Design (great video from HFI) - #usableapps #UX #L10n

  - by ultan o'broin

  Great video from HFI Animate, featuring user-centered design for emerging markets called Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time. Cross Cultural Design: Getting It Right the First Time Apala Lahiri Chavan talks about the issues involved in designing solutions for Africa, India, China and more markets! Design for the local customer's ecosystem - and their feelings! Timely reminder of the important of global and local research in UX!

  Read the article

• .net design pattern question

  - by user359562

  Hi. I am trying to understand design pattern problems. I am trying to modify the code like this in winforms and trying to see if any design pattern suits my requirement. Please suggest which is the best design pattern in this scenario. This is very basic code containing 2 tab pages which might have different controls can be added dynamically and read out different files on click of particular tab. To elaborate more... I have written this code to learn and understand design pattern. This is just a scenario where user click on a particular tab which will show dynamic controls generated. public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); } private void tabControl1_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage1")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1(); } else if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage2")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2(); } } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1() { Label label1 = new Label(); label1.Text = "Label1"; tabPage1.Controls.Add(label1); ReadCSVFile(); } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2() { tabPage1.Controls.Clear(); Label label2 = new Label(); label2.Text = "Label2"; tabPage2.Controls.Add(label2); ReadTextFile(); } private void ReadCSVFile() { } private void ReadTextFile() { } }

  Read the article

• Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

  - by romeovs

  I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

  Read the article

• Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

  - by Avi Flax

  It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

  Read the article

• Interface (contract), Generics (universality), and extension methods (ease of use). Is it a right design?

  - by Saeed Neamati

  I'm trying to design a simple conversion framework based on these requirements: All developers should follow a predefined set of rules to convert from the source entity to the target entity Some overall policies should be able to be applied in a central place, without interference with developers' code Both the creation of converters and usage of converter classes should be easy To solve these problems in C# language, A thought came to my mind. I'm writing it here, though it doesn't compile at all. But let's assume that C# compiles this code: I'll create a generic interface called IConverter public interface IConverter<TSource, TTarget> where TSource : class, new() where TTarget : class, new() { TTarget Convert(TSource source); List<TTarget> Convert(List<TSource> sourceItems); } Developers would implement this interface to create converters. For example: public class PhoneToCommunicationChannelConverter : IConverter<Phone, CommunicationChannle> { public CommunicationChannel Convert(Phone phone) { // conversion logic } public List<CommunicationChannel> Convert(List<Phone> phones) { // conversion logic } } And to make the usage of this conversion class easier, imagine that we add static and this keywords to methods to turn them into Extension Methods, and use them this way: List<Phone> phones = GetPhones(); List<CommunicationChannel> channels = phones.Convert(); However, this doesn't even compile. With those requirements, I can think of some other designs, but they each lack an aspect. Either the implementation would become more difficult or chaotic and out of control, or the usage would become truly hard. Is this design right at all? What alternatives I might have to achieve those requirements?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >