Search Results

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

Page 47/132 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

  • Is there a better way to create an object-oriented class with jquery?

    - by Devon
    I use the jquery extend function to extend a class prototype. For example: MyWidget = function(name_var) { this.init(name_var); } $.extend(MyWidget.prototype, { // object variables widget_name: '', init: function(widget_name) { // do initialization here this.widget_name = widget_name; }, doSomething: function() { // an example object method alert('my name is '+this.widget_name); } }); // example of using the class built above var widget1 = new MyWidget('widget one'); widget1.doSomething(); Is there a better way to do this? Is there a cleaner way to create the class above with only one statement instead of two?

    Read the article

  • How do i get out of the habit of procedural programming and into object oriented programming?

    - by Shadi Almosri
    Hiya all, I'm hoping to get some tips to kinda help me break out of what i consider after all these years a bad habit of procedural programming. Every time i attempt to do a project in OOP i end up eventually reverting to procedural. I guess i'm not completely convinced with OOP (even though i think i've heard everything good about it!). So i guess any good practical examples of common programming tasks that i often carry out such as user authentication/management, data parsing, CMS/Blogging/eComs are the kinda of things i do often, yet i haven't been able to get my head around how to do them in OOP and away from procedural, especially as the systems i build tend to work and work well. One thing i can see as a downfall to my development, is that i do reuse my code often, and it often needs more rewrites and improvement, but i sometimes consider this as a natural evolution of my software development. Yet i want to change! to my fellow programmers, help :) any tips on how i can break out of this nasty habbit?

    Read the article

  • Database: relational/not relational/object oriented... What to choose?

    - by Damian
    I'm porting a website that I made for app engine to run on a dedicated server. It is coded in java and I'm looking for a database to replace google datastore. My first thougt was MySql because everybody uses it, but i dont like SQL and I think I would feel more comfortable using OODB or anything else. With google datastore I could modify my models and don't worry about the database definition at all. I know using MySql that isn't possible. And I don't want to miss that. And if I use a OODB, which should I use? What about performance compared to MySql? Well, any idea or tip will really help me since I know nothing about databases.

    Read the article

  • Some specific questions about object oriented and MVC design.

    - by Samn
    I have two objects, Users and Mail. Users create Mail objects and send them to other users. If I wanted to get all mail for a User, I could create a method like GetMail() that would return an array of Mail objects owned by that User. But if I wanted to get all mail across the system, what "type" of object would be responsible for that? To solve this problem, I usually create a Manager, which is an object responsible for dealing with a collection of a particular type of object. MailManager deals with collections of Mail objects. GetMailForUser() is one method, GetAllMail() is another method. The User objects invokes the MailManager and executes GetMailForUser(me). Is this stupid? When a user executes the controller CreateMail, a new instance of the Mail object is created. The Mail object, seeing it is creating a new Mail of type 'sent', decides to go ahead and create a second Mail object for the recipient, of type 'received'. Creating one Mail object triggers the creation of a second Mail object. Is this stupid? Should the controller have created both Mail objects, or just the first 'sent' one? When two Users are friends, the association is stored in a table of Relationships. I use a simple object for Relationships. A RelationshipManager has a method called GetFriendsForUser(). The User object has a method GetFriends(), which invokes the RelationshipManager. Is this stupid?

    Read the article

  • How to convert this procedural programming to object-oriented programming?

    - by manus91
    I have a source code that is needed to be converted by creating classes, objects and methods. So far, I've just done by converting the initial main into a separate class. But I don't know what to do with constructor and which variables are supposed to be private. This is the code : import java.util.*; public class Card{ private static void shuffle(int[][] cards){ List<Integer> randoms = new ArrayList<Integer>(); Random randomizer = new Random(); for(int i = 0; i < 8;) { int r = randomizer.nextInt(8)+1; if(!randoms.contains(r)) { randoms.add(r); i++; } } List<Integer> clonedList = new ArrayList<Integer>(); clonedList.addAll(randoms); Collections.shuffle(clonedList); randoms.addAll(clonedList); Collections.shuffle(randoms); int i=0; for(int r=0; r < 4; r++){ for(int c=0; c < 4; c++){ cards[r][c] = randoms.get(i); i++; } } } public static void play() throws InterruptedException { int ans = 1; int preview; int r1,c1,r2,c2; int[][] cards = new int[4][4]; boolean[][] cardstatus = new boolean[4][4]; boolean gameover = false; int moves; Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in); do{ moves = 0; shuffle(cards); System.out.print("Enter the time(0 to 5) in seconds for the preview of the answer : "); preview = input.nextInt(); while((preview<0) || (preview>5)){ System.out.print("Invalid time!! Re-enter time(0 - 5) : "); preview = input.nextInt(); } preview = 1000*preview; System.out.println(" "); for (int i =0; i<4;i++){ for (int j=0;j<4;j++){ System.out.print(cards[i][j]); System.out.print(" "); } System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); } Thread.sleep(preview); for(int b=0;b<25;b++){ System.out.println(" "); } for(int r=0;r<4;r++){ for(int c=0;c<4;c++){ System.out.print("*"); System.out.print(" "); cardstatus[r][c] = false; } System.out.println(""); System.out.println(" "); } System.out.println(""); do{ do{ System.out.print("Please insert the first card row : "); r1 = input.nextInt(); while((r1<1) || (r1>4)){ System.out.print("Invalid coordinate!! Re-enter first card row : "); r1 = input.nextInt(); } System.out.print("Please insert the first card column : "); c1 = input.nextInt(); while((c1<1) || (c1>4)){ System.out.print("Invalid coordinate!! Re-enter first card column : "); c1 = input.nextInt(); } if(cardstatus[r1-1][c1-1] == true){ System.out.println("The card is already flipped!! Select another card."); System.out.println(""); } }while(cardstatus[r1-1][c1-1] != false); do{ System.out.print("Please insert the second card row : "); r2 = input.nextInt(); while((r2<1) || (r2>4)){ System.out.print("Invalid coordinate!! Re-enter second card row : "); r2 = input.nextInt(); } System.out.print("Please insert the second card column : "); c2 = input.nextInt(); while((c2<1) || (c2>4)){ System.out.print("Invalid coordinate!! Re-enter second card column : "); c2 = input.nextInt(); } if(cardstatus[r2-1][c2-1] == true){ System.out.println("The card is already flipped!! Select another card."); } if((r1==r2)&&(c1==c2)){ System.out.println("You can't select the same card twice!!"); continue; } }while(cardstatus[r2-1][c2-1] != false); r1--; c1--; r2--; c2--; System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); for(int r=0;r<4;r++){ for(int c=0;c<4;c++){ if((r==r1)&&(c==c1)){ System.out.print(cards[r][c]); System.out.print(" "); } else if((r==r2)&&(c==c2)){ System.out.print(cards[r][c]); System.out.print(" "); } else if(cardstatus[r][c] == true){ System.out.print(cards[r][c]); System.out.print(" "); } else{ System.out.print("*"); System.out.print(" "); } } System.out.println(" "); System.out.println(" "); } System.out.println(""); if(cards[r1][c1] == cards[r2][c2]){ System.out.println("Cards Matched!!"); cardstatus[r1][c1] = true; cardstatus[r2][c2] = true; } else{ System.out.println("No cards match!!"); } Thread.sleep(2000); for(int b=0;b<25;b++){ System.out.println(""); } for(int r=0;r<4;r++){ for(int c=0;c<4;c++){ if(cardstatus[r][c] == true){ System.out.print(cards[r][c]); System.out.print(" "); } else{ System.out.print("*"); System.out.print(" "); } } System.out.println(""); System.out.println(" "); } System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); System.out.println(""); gameover = true; for(int r=0;r<4;r++){ for( int c=0;c<4;c++){ if(cardstatus[r][c]==false){ gameover = false; break; } } if(gameover==false){ break; } } moves++; }while(gameover != true); System.out.println("Congratulations, you won!!"); System.out.println("It required " + moves + " moves to finish it."); System.out.println(""); System.out.print("Would you like to play again? (1=Yes / 0=No) : "); ans = input.nextInt(); }while(ans == 1); } } The main class is: import java.util.*; public class PlayCard{ public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{ Card game = new Card(); game.play(); } } Should I simplify the Card class by creating other classes? Through this code, my javadoc has no constructtor. So i need help on this!

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to organize object oriented code?

    - by Adam
    I haven't coded in java for a long time, and after coding in C, I'm having issued organizing my code for OOP. More specifically I'm not sure when to create a new method, and when to create a new class, and when to just lump everything together. Are there some general rules or guidelines on how it should be done?

    Read the article

  • Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

    - by Stimul8d
    I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

    Read the article

  • What was the thinking behind the development of Object Oriented Programming?

    - by leeand00
    I've got some real nay-sayers on my hands here, and I'm trying to give them the reason why OOP was developed in the first place. I realize that OOP is not perfect for all problems and situations, but it was developed for a reason... My guess would be, that a few of those reasons would be: Maintainability Re-usability Document-ability Abstraction of Complex Technologies Dynamic Extension at Runtime... Probably some things that I'm not even aware of yet... But I really don't have much to back this up, and I was wondering why OOP was developed in the first place, and it's history. What were the people who developed OOP trying to accomplish? What led them to develop OOP?

    Read the article

  • Do you use Python mostly for its functional or object-oriented features?

    - by Eric
    I see what seems like a majority of Python developers on StackOverflow endorsing the use of concise functional tools like lambdas, maps, filters, etc., while others say their code is clearer and more maintainable by not using them. What is your preference? Also, if you are a die-hard functional programmer or hardcore into OO, what other specific programming practices do you use that you think are best for your style? Thanks in advance for your opinions!

    Read the article

  • PostSharp when using DataContractSerializer?

    - by Dan Bryant
    I have an Aspect that implements INotifyPropertyChanged on a class. The aspect includes the following: [OnLocationSetValueAdvice, MethodPointcut("SelectProperties")] public void OnPropertySet(LocationInterceptionArgs args) { var currentValue = args.GetCurrentValue(); bool alreadyEqual = (currentValue == args.Value); // Call the setter args.ProceedSetValue(); // Invoke method OnPropertyChanged (ours, the base one, or the overridden one). if (!alreadyEqual) OnPropertyChangedMethod.Invoke(args.Location.Name); } This works fine when I instantiate the class normally, but I run into problems when I deserialize the class using a DataContractSerializer. This bypasses the constructor, which I'm guessing interferes with the way that PostSharp sets itself up. This ends up causing a NullReferenceException in an intercepted property setter, but before it has called the custom OnPropertySet, so I'm guessing it interferes with setting up the LocationInterceptionArgs. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Is there a way I can work around it? I did some more research and discovered I can fix the issue by doing this: [OnDeserializing] private void OnDeserializing(StreamingContext context) { AspectUtilities.InitializeCurrentAspects(); } I thought, okay, that's not too bad, so I tried to do this in my Aspect: private IEnumerable<MethodInfo> SelectDeserializing(Type type) { return type.GetMethods(BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public).Where( t => t.IsDefined(typeof (OnDeserializingAttribute), false)); } [OnMethodEntryAdvice, MethodPointcut("SelectDeserializing")] public void OnMethodEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { AspectUtilities.InitializeCurrentAspects(); } Unfortunately, even though it intercepts the method properly, it doesn't work. I'm thinking the call to InitializeCurrentAspects isn't getting transformed properly, since it's now inside the Aspect rather than directly inside the aspect-enhanced class. Is there a way I can cleanly automate this so that I don't have to worry about calling this on every class that I want to have the Aspect?

    Read the article

  • Should one always know what an API is doing just by looking at the code?

    - by markmnl
    Recently I have been developing my own API and with that invested interest in API design I have been keenly interested how I can improve my API design. One aspect that has come up a couple times is (not by users of my API but in my observing discussion about the topic): one should know just by looking at the code calling the API what it is doing. For example see this discussion on GitHub for the discourse repo, it goes something like: foo.update_pinned(true, true); Just by looking at the code (without knowing the parameter names, documentation etc.) one cannot guess what it is going to do - what does the 2nd argument mean? The suggested improvement is to have something like: foo.pin() foo.unpin() foo.pin_globally() And that clears things up (the 2nd arg was whether to pin foo globally, I am guessing), and I agree in this case the later would certainly be an improvement. However I believe there can be instances where methods to set different but logically related state would be better exposed as one method call rather than separate ones, even though you would not know what it is doing just by looking at the code. (So you would have to resort to looking at the parameter names and documentation to find out - which personally I would always do no matter what if I am unfamiliar with an API). For example I expose one method SetVisibility(bool, string, bool) on a FalconPeer and I acknowledge just looking at the line: falconPeer.SetVisibility(true, "aerw3", true); You would have no idea what it is doing. It is setting 3 different values that control the "visibility" of the falconPeer in the logical sense: accept join requests, only with password and reply to discovery requests. Splitting this out into 3 method calls could lead to a user of the API to set one aspect of "visibility" forgetting to set others that I force them to think about by only exposing the one method to set all aspects of "visibility". Furthermore when the user wants to change one aspect they almost always will want to change another aspect and can now do so in one call.

    Read the article

  • Having trouble with projection matrix, need help

    - by Mr.UNOwen
    I'm having trouble with what appears to be the projection matrix. Given a wide enough of a screen, when a cube is on the left and right most edge, the left or right wall will appear stretched to the point that the front face is 1/10 the width of the side. So I do update the screen ratio along with the projection matrix and view port on screen resize, am I safe to assume all the trouble is from the matrix class? Also the cube follows the mouse, but it's only vertically aligned and ahead of the mouse when going left or right from the center of the screen. Perspective function call: * setPerspective * * @param fov: angle in radians * @param aspect: screen ratio w/h * @param near: near distance * @param far: far distance **/ void APCamera::setPerspective(GMFloat_t fov, GMFloat_t aspect, GMFloat_t near, GMFloat_t far) { GMFloat_t difZ = near - far; GMFloat_t *data; mProjection->clear(); //set to identity matrix data = mProjection->getData(); GMFloat_t v = 1.0f / tan(fov / 2.0f); data[_AP_MAA] = v / aspect; data[_AP_MBB] = v; data[_AP_MCC] = (far + near) / difZ; data[_AP_MCD] = -1.0f; data[_AP_MDD] = 0.0f; data[_AP_MDC] = 2.0f * far * near/ difZ; mRatio = aspect; mInvProjOutdated = true; mIsPerspective = true; } and... #define _AP_MAA 0 #define _AP_MAB 1 #define _AP_MAC 2 #define _AP_MAD 3 #define _AP_MBA 4 #define _AP_MBB 5 #define _AP_MBC 6 #define _AP_MBD 7 #define _AP_MCA 8 #define _AP_MCB 9 #define _AP_MCC 10 #define _AP_MCD 11 #define _AP_MDA 12 #define _AP_MDB 13 #define _AP_MDC 14 #define _AP_MDD 15

    Read the article

  • SOA Implementation Challenges

    Why do companies think that if they put up a web service that they are doing Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA)? Unfortunately, the IT and business world love to run on the latest hype or buzz words of which very few even understand the meaning. One of the largest issues companies have today as they consider going down the path of SOA, is the lack of knowledge regarding the architectural style and the over usage of the term SOA. So how do we solve this issue?I am sure most of you are thinking by now that you know what SOA is because you developed a few web services.  Isn’t that SOA, right? No, that is not SOA, but instead Just Another Web Service (JAWS). For us to better understand what SOA is let’s look at a few definitions.Douglas K. Bary defines service-oriented architecture as a collection of services. These services are enabled to communicate with each other in order to pass data or coordinating some activity with other services.If you look at this definition closely you will notice that Bary states that services communicate with each other. Let us compare this statement with my first statement regarding companies that claim to be doing SOA when they have just a collection of web services. In order for these web services to for an SOA application they need to be interdependent on one another forming some sort of architectural hierarchy. Just because a company has a few web services does not mean that they are all interconnected.SearchSOA from TechTarget.com states that SOA defines how two computing entities work collectively to enable one entity to perform a unit of work on behalf of another. Once again, just because a company has a few web services does not guarantee that they are even working together let alone if they are performing work for each other.SearchSOA also points out service interactions should be self-contained and loosely-coupled so that all interactions operate independent of each other.Of all the definitions regarding SOA Thomas Erl’s seems to shed the most light on this concept. He states that “SOA establishes an architectural model that aims to enhance the efficiency, agility, and productivity of an enterprise by positioning services as the primary means through which solution logic is represented in support of the realization of the strategic goals associated with service-oriented computing.” (Erl, 2011) Once again this definition proves that a collection of web services does not mean that a company is doing SOA. However, it does mean that a company has a collection of web services, and that is it.In order for a company to start to go down the path of SOA, they must take  a hard look at their existing business process while abstracting away any technology so that they can define what is they really want to accomplish. Once a company has done this, they can begin to factor out common sub business process like credit card process, user authentication or system notifications in to small components that can be built independent of each other and then reassembled to form new and dynamic services that are loosely coupled and agile in that they can change as a business grows.Another key pitfall of companies doing SOA is the fact that they let vendors drive their architecture. Why do companies do this? Vendors’ do not hold your company’s success as their top priority; in fact they hold their own success as their top priority by selling you as much stuff as you are willing to buy. In my experience companies tend to strive for the maximum amount of benefits with a minimal amount of cost. Does anyone else see any conflicts between this and the driving force behind vendors.Mike Kavis recommends in an article written in CIO.com that companies need to figure out what they need before they talk to a vendor or at least have some idea of what they need. It is important to thoroughly evaluate each vendor and watch them perform a live demo of their system so that you as the company fully understand what kind of product or service the vendor is actually offering. In addition, do research on each vendor that you are considering, check out blog posts, online reviews, and any information you can find on the vendor through various search engines.Finally he recommends companies to verify any recommendations supplied by a vendor. From personal experience this is very important. I can remember when the company I worked for purchased a $200,000 add-on to their phone system that never actually worked as it was intended. In fact, just after my departure from the company started the process of attempting to get their money back from the vendor. This potentially could have been avoided if the company had done the research before selecting this vendor to ensure that their product and vendor would live up to their claims. I know that some SOA vendor offer free training regarding SOA because they know that there are a lot of misconceptions about the topic. Superficially this is a great thing for companies to take part in especially if the company is starting to implement SOA architecture and are still unsure about some topics or are looking for some guidance regarding the topic. However beware that some companies will focus on their product line only regarding the training. As an example, InfoWorld.com claims that companies providing deep seminars disguised as training, focusing more about ESBs and SOA governance technology, and less on how to approach and solve the architectural issues of the attendees.In short, it is important to remember that we as software professionals are responsible for guiding a business’s technology sections should be well informed and fully understand any new concepts that may be considered for implementation. As I have demonstrated already a company that has a few web services does not mean that they are doing SOA.  Additionally, we must not let the new buzz word of the day drive our technology, but instead our technology decisions should be driven from research and proven experience. Finally, it is important to rely on vendors when necessary, however, always take what they say with a grain of salt while cross checking any claims that they may make because we have to live with the aftermath of a system after the vendors are gone.   References: Barry, D. K. (2011). Service-oriented architecture (SOA) definition. Retrieved 12 12, 2011, from Service-Architecture.com: http://www.service-architecture.com/web-services/articles/service-oriented_architecture_soa_definition.html Connell, B. (2003, 9). service-oriented architecture (SOA). Retrieved 12 12, 2011, from SearchSOA: http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/service-oriented-architecture Erl, T. (2011, 12 12). Service-Oriented Architecture. Retrieved 12 12, 2011, from WhatIsSOA: http://www.whatissoa.com/p10.php InfoWorld. (2008, 6 1). Should you get your SOA knowledge from SOA vendors? . Retrieved 12 12, 2011, from InfoWorld.com: http://www.infoworld.com/d/architecture/should-you-get-your-soa-knowledge-soa-vendors-453 Kavis, M. (2008, 6 18). Top 10 Reasons Why People are Making SOA Fail. Retrieved 12 13, 2011, from CIO.com: http://www.cio.com/article/438413/Top_10_Reasons_Why_People_are_Making_SOA_Fail?page=5&taxonomyId=3016  

    Read the article

  • Ria Services vs WCF Dataservices

    - by NPehrsson
    My Team are evaluation to a bigger Business portal. (Invoicing, Bookkeeping, Salaries.....) We are all used to work with DDD, O/R mappers with NHibernate as our first choice. We have chosen to work with CompositeWPF to keep modularity between all modules and part system in the business portal. Now we have evaluated Ria Services and are kind of disappointed how it works in a Data Oriented way, Data Oriented can be good in a service oriented scenario, but we feel that we can with an Object Oriented approach to, and we feel that we can get an application with less complexity with the OO approach than the DO approach. For example it doesn't allow Value Objects, Many-to-many relations, everything needs to have keys and so on. We haven't looked at WCF Data Services yet so our question is WCF Data Services our answere? Does it integrate good with Silverlight 4? Can we work with it in a OO manor?

    Read the article

  • Java EE 6: JSF vs Servlet + JSP. Should I bother learning JSF?

    - by Harry Pham
    I am trying to get familiar with Java EE 6 by reading http://java.sun.com/javaee/6/docs/tutorial/doc/gexaf.html. I am a bit confused about the use of JSF. Usually, the way I develop my Web App would be, Servlet would act like a controller and JSP would act like a View in an MVC model. So Does JSF try to replace this structure? Below are the quote from the above tutorial: Servlet are best suited for service-oriented App and control function of presentation-oriented App like dispatching request JSF and Facelet are more appropriated for generating mark-up like XHTML, and generally used for presentation-oriented App Not sure if I understand the above quote too well, they did not explain too well what is service-oriented vs presentation-oriented. A JavaServer Faces application can map HTTP requests to component-specific event handling and manage components as stateful objects on the server. Any knowledgeable Java developer out there can give me a quick overview about JSF, JSP and Servlet? Do I integrate them all, or do I use them separated base on the App? if so then what kind of app use JSF in contrast with Servlet and JSP A JavaServer Faces application can map HTTP requests to component-specific event handling and manage components as stateful objects on the server. Sound like what servlet can do, but not sure about manage components as stateful objects on the server. Not even sure what that mean? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Unstructured Data - The future of Data Administration

    Some have claimed that there is a problem with the way data is currently managed using the relational paradigm do to the rise of unstructured data in modern business. PCMag.com defines unstructured data as data that does not reside in a fixed location. They further explain that unstructured data refers to data in a free text form that is not bound to any specific structure. With the rise of unstructured data in the form of emails, spread sheets, images and documents the critics have a right to argue that the relational paradigm is not as effective as the object oriented data paradigm in managing this type of data. The relational paradigm relies heavily on structure and relationships in and between items of data. This type of paradigm works best in a relation database management system like Microsoft SQL, MySQL, and Oracle because data is forced to conform to a structure in the form of tables and relations can be derived from the existence of one or more tables. These critics also claim that database administrators have not kept up with reality because their primary focus in regards to data administration deals with structured data and the relational paradigm. The relational paradigm was developed in the 1970’s as a way to improve data management when compared to standard flat files. Little has changed since then, and modern database administrators need to know more than just how to handle structured data. That is why critics claim that today’s data professionals do not have the proper skills in order to store and maintain data for modern systems when compared to the skills of system designers, programmers , software engineers, and data designers  due to the industry trend of object oriented design and development. I think that they are wrong. I do not disagree that the industry is moving toward an object oriented approach to development with the potential to use more of an object oriented approach to data.   However, I think that it is business itself that is limiting database administrators from changing how data is stored because of the potential costs, and impact that might occur by altering any part of stored data. Furthermore, database administrators like all technology workers constantly are trying to improve their technical skills in order to excel in their job, so I think that accusing data professional is not just when the root cause of the lack of innovation is controlled by business, and it is business that will suffer for their inability to keep up with technology. One way for database professionals to better prepare for the future of database management is start working with data in the form of objects and so that they can extract data from the objects so that the stored information within objects can be used in relation to the data stored in a using the relational paradigm. Furthermore, I think the use of pattern matching will increase with the increased use of unstructured data because object can be selected, filtered and altered based on the existence of a pattern found within an object.

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by Simon Cooper
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day!

    Read the article

  • WPF: Reloading app parts to handle persistence as well as memory management.

    - by Ingó Vals
    I created a app using Microsoft's WPF. It mostly handles data reading and input as well as associating relations between data within specific parameters. As a total beginner I made some bad design decision ( not so much decisions as using the first thing I got to work ) but now understanding WPF better I'm getting the urge to refactor my code with better design principles. I had several problems but I guess each deserves it's own question for clarity. Here I'm asking for proper ways to handle the data itself. In the original I wrapped each row in a object when fetched from database ( using LINQ to SQL ) somewhat like Active Record just not active or persistence (each app instance had it's own data handling part). The app has subunits handling different aspects. However as it was setup it loaded everything when started. This creates several problems, for example often it wouldn't be neccesary to load a part unless we were specifically going to work with that part so I wan't some form of lazy loading. Also there was problem with inner persistance because you might create a new object/row in one aspect and perhaps set relation between it and different object but the new object wouldn't appear until the program was restarted. Persistance between instances of the app won't be huge problem because of the small amount of people using the program. While I could solve this now using dirty tricks I would rather refactor the program and do it elegantly, Now the question is how. I know there are several ways and a few come to mind: 1) Each aspect of the program is it's own UserControl that get's reloaded/instanced everytime you navigate to it. This ensures you only load up the data you need and you get some persistancy. DB server located on same LAN and tables are small so that shouldn't be a big problem. Minor drawback is that you would have to remember the state of each aspect so you wouldn't always start at beginners square. 2) Having a ViewModel type object at the base level of the app with lazy loading and some kind of timeout. I would then propegate this object down the visual tree to ensure every aspect is getting it's data from the same instance 3) Semi active record data layer with static load methods. 4) Some other idea What in your opinion is the most practical way in WPF, what does MVVM assume?

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by Simon Cooper
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day!

    Read the article

  • PostSharp, Obfuscation, and IL

    - by simonc
    Aspect-oriented programming (AOP) is a relatively new programming paradigm. Originating at Xerox PARC in 1994, the paradigm was first made available for general-purpose development as an extension to Java in 2001. From there, it has quickly been adapted for use in all the common languages used today. In the .NET world, one of the primary AOP toolkits is PostSharp. Attributes and AOP Normally, attributes in .NET are entirely a metadata construct. Apart from a few special attributes in the .NET framework, they have no effect whatsoever on how a class or method executes within the CLR. Only by using reflection at runtime can you access any attributes declared on a type or type member. PostSharp changes this. By declaring a custom attribute that derives from PostSharp.Aspects.Aspect, applying it to types and type members, and running the resulting assembly through the PostSharp postprocessor, you can essentially declare 'clever' attributes that change the behaviour of whatever the aspect has been applied to at runtime. A simple example of this is logging. By declaring a TraceAttribute that derives from OnMethodBoundaryAspect, you can automatically log when a method has been executed: public class TraceAttribute : PostSharp.Aspects.OnMethodBoundaryAspect { public override void OnEntry(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Entering {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } public override void OnExit(MethodExecutionArgs args) { MethodBase method = args.Method; System.Diagnostics.Trace.WriteLine( String.Format( "Leaving {0}.{1}.", method.DeclaringType.FullName, method.Name)); } } [Trace] public void MethodToLog() { ... } Now, whenever MethodToLog is executed, the aspect will automatically log entry and exit, without having to add the logging code to MethodToLog itself. PostSharp Performance Now this does introduce a performance overhead - as you can see, the aspect allows access to the MethodBase of the method the aspect has been applied to. If you were limited to C#, you would be forced to retrieve each MethodBase instance using Type.GetMethod(), matching on the method name and signature. This is slow. Fortunately, PostSharp is not limited to C#. It can use any instruction available in IL. And in IL, you can do some very neat things. Ldtoken C# allows you to get the Type object corresponding to a specific type name using the typeof operator: Type t = typeof(Random); The C# compiler compiles this operator to the following IL: ldtoken [mscorlib]System.Random call class [mscorlib]System.Type [mscorlib]System.Type::GetTypeFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeTypeHandle) The ldtoken instruction obtains a special handle to a type called a RuntimeTypeHandle, and from that, the Type object can be obtained using GetTypeFromHandle. These are both relatively fast operations - no string lookup is required, only direct assembly and CLR constructs are used. However, a little-known feature is that ldtoken is not just limited to types; it can also get information on methods and fields, encapsulated in a RuntimeMethodHandle or RuntimeFieldHandle: // get a MethodBase for String.EndsWith(string) ldtoken method instance bool [mscorlib]System.String::EndsWith(string) call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase [mscorlib]System.Reflection.MethodBase::GetMethodFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeMethodHandle) // get a FieldInfo for the String.Empty field ldtoken field string [mscorlib]System.String::Empty call class [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo [mscorlib]System.Reflection.FieldInfo::GetFieldFromHandle( valuetype [mscorlib]System.RuntimeFieldHandle) These usages of ldtoken aren't usable from C# or VB, and aren't likely to be added anytime soon (Eric Lippert's done a blog post on the possibility of adding infoof, methodof or fieldof operators to C#). However, PostSharp deals directly with IL, and so can use ldtoken to get MethodBase objects quickly and cheaply, without having to resort to string lookups. The kicker However, there are problems. Because ldtoken for methods or fields isn't accessible from C# or VB, it hasn't been as well-tested as ldtoken for types. This has resulted in various obscure bugs in most versions of the CLR when dealing with ldtoken and methods, and specifically, generic methods and methods of generic types. This means that PostSharp was behaving incorrectly, or just plain crashing, when aspects were applied to methods that were generic in some way. So, PostSharp has to work around this. Without using the metadata tokens directly, the only way to get the MethodBase of generic methods is to use reflection: Type.GetMethod(), passing in the method name as a string along with information on the signature. Now, this works fine. It's slower than using ldtoken directly, but it works, and this only has to be done for generic methods. Unfortunately, this poses problems when the assembly is obfuscated. PostSharp and Obfuscation When using ldtoken, obfuscators don't affect how PostSharp operates. Because the ldtoken instruction directly references the type, method or field within the assembly, it is unaffected if the name of the object is changed by an obfuscator. However, the indirect loading used for generic methods was breaking, because that uses the name of the method when the assembly is put through the PostSharp postprocessor to lookup the MethodBase at runtime. If the name then changes, PostSharp can't find it anymore, and the assembly breaks. So, PostSharp needs to know about any changes an obfuscator does to an assembly. The way PostSharp does this is by adding another layer of indirection. When PostSharp obfuscation support is enabled, it includes an extra 'name table' resource in the assembly, consisting of a series of method & type names. When PostSharp needs to lookup a method using reflection, instead of encoding the method name directly, it looks up the method name at a fixed offset inside that name table: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(ContainingClass).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: get_Prop1 21: set_Prop1 22: DoFoo 23: GetWibble When the assembly is later processed by an obfuscator, the obfuscator can replace all the method and type names within the name table with their new name. That way, the reflection lookups performed by PostSharp will now use the new names, and everything will work as expected: MethodBase genericMethod = typeof(#kGy).GetMethod(GetNameAtIndex(22)); PostSharp.NameTable resource: ... 20: #kkA 21: #zAb 22: #EF5a 23: #2tg As you can see, this requires direct support by an obfuscator in order to perform these rewrites. Dotfuscator supports it, and now, starting with SmartAssembly 6.6.4, SmartAssembly does too. So, a relatively simple solution to a tricky problem, with some CLR bugs thrown in for good measure. You don't see those every day! Cross posted from Simple Talk.

    Read the article

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