Search Results

Search found 38284 results on 1532 pages for 'object reference'.

Page 48/1532 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

• How to conciliate OOAD and Database Design?

  - by user1620696

  Recently I've studied about object oriented analysis and design and I liked a lot about it. In every place I've read people say that the idea is to start with the minimum set of requirements and go improving along the way, revisiting this each iteration and making it better as we contiuously develop and contact the customer interested in the software. In particular, one course from Lynda.com said a lot of that: we don't want to spend a lot of time planing everything upfront, we just want to have the minimum to get started and then improve this each iteration. Now, I've also seem a course from the same guy about database design, and there he says differently. He says that although when working with object orientation he likes the agile iterative approach, for database design we should really spend a lot of time planing things upfront instead of just going along the way with the minimum. But this confuses me a little. Indeed, the database will persist important data from our domain model and perhaps configurations of the software and so on. Now, if I'm going to continuously revist the analysis and design of the model, it seems the database design should change also. In the same way, if we plan all the database upfront it seems we are also planing all the model upfront, so the two ideas seems to be incompatible. I really like agile iterative approach, but I'm also looking at getting better design for the database also, so when working with agile iterative approach, how should we deal with the database design?

  Read the article

• Are Get-Set methods a violation of Encapsulation?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  In an Object oriented framework, one believes there must be strict encapsulation. Hence, internal variables are not to be exposed to outside applications. But in many codebases, we see tons of get/set methods which essentially open a formal window to modify internal variables that were originally intended to be strictly prohibited. Isn't it a clear violation of encapsulation? How broadly such a practice is seen and what to do about it? EDIT: I have seen some discussions where there are two opinions in extreme: on one hand people believe that because get/set interface is used to modify any parameter, it does qualifies not be violating encapsulation. On the other hand, there are people who believe it is does violate. Here is my point. Take a case of UDP server, with methods - get_URL(), set_URL(). The URL (to listen to) property is quite a parameter that application needs to be supplied and modified. However, in the same case, if the property like get_byte_buffer_length() and set_byte_buffer_length(), clearly points to values which are quite internal. Won't it imply that it does violate the encapsulation? In fact, even get_byte_buffer_length() which otherwise doesn't modify the object, still misses the point of encapsulation, because, certainly there is an App which knows i have an internal buffer! Tomorrow, if the internal buffer is replaced by something like a *packet_list* the method goes dysfunctional. Is there a universal yes/no towards get set method? Is there any strong guideline that tell programmers (specially the junior ones) as to when does it violate encapsulation and when does it not?

  Read the article

• When are Getters and Setters Justified

  - by Winston Ewert

  Getters and setters are often criticized as being not proper OO. On the other hand most OO code I've seen has extensive getters and setters. When are getters and setters justified? Do you try to avoid using them? Are they overused in general? If your favorite language has properties (mine does) then such things are also considered getters and setters for this question. They are same thing from an OO methodology perspective. They just have nicer syntax. Sources for Getter/Setter Criticism (some taken from comments to give them better visibility): http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccessorsAreEvil http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/2005/03/no-brain-getter-and-setters.cfm http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/encapsulation_violation_with_getters_and To state the criticism simply: Getters and Setters allow you to manipulate the internal state of objects from outside of the object. This violates encapsulation. Only the object itself should care about its internal state. And an example Procedural version of code. struct Fridge { int cheese; } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.cheese += 5; } Mutator version of code: class Fridge { int cheese; void set_cheese(int _cheese) { cheese = _cheese; } int get_cheese() { return cheese; } } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.set_cheese(fridge.get_cheese() + 5); } The getters and setters made the code much more complicated without affording proper encapsulation. Because the internal state is accessible to other objects we don't gain a whole lot by adding these getters and setters. The question has been previously discussed on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/565095/java-are-getters-and-setters-evil http://stackoverflow.com/questions/996179

  Read the article

• OOP oriented PHP app source code samples and advice

  - by abel

  The day I have been dreading has arrived. I never felt OOP or good software design was important(I knew they were important, but I thought I could manage without them.). However having read otherwise almost everywhere on the interwebs, I started dreading the day when my client would ask me for new features in an existing app. The day has come and the pain is unbearable! I have never coded my PHP websites "properly"(PHP is my primary language and the bulk of my work. I am learning Python (using web2py)) I take care that the website doesn't fall apart in a daily use scenario. I code pages like I was creating a list of static html files with bits of "magic code" in each of them(this bugs me a lot). How do I make the whole app more or less a single object? For eg. How do I design the object model for an invoicing app? I use a lot of functions for doing any particular thing in the same fashion throughout the app(for eg. validation, generating ids, calculating taxes etc.). I know the basics of OOP in general. Can anyone point me to source code samples of functional apps written in php? Or can someone provide pointers so I can recode my existing apps in a more modular way.

  Read the article

• Why is an anemic domain model considered bad in C#/OOP, but very important in F#/FP?

  - by Danny Tuppeny

  In a blog post on F# for fun and profit, it says: In a functional design, it is very important to separate behavior from data. The data types are simple and "dumb". And then separately, you have a number of functions that act on those data types. This is the exact opposite of an object-oriented design, where behavior and data are meant to be combined. After all, that's exactly what a class is. In a truly object-oriented design in fact, you should have nothing but behavior -- the data is private and can only be accessed via methods. In fact, in OOD, not having enough behavior around a data type is considered a Bad Thing, and even has a name: the "anemic domain model". Given that in C# we seem to keep borrowing from F#, and trying to write more functional-style code; how come we're not borrowing the idea of separating data/behavior, and even consider it bad? Is it simply that the definition doesn't with with OOP, or is there a concrete reason that it's bad in C# that for some reason doesn't apply in F# (and in fact, is reversed)? (Note: I'm specifically interested in the differences in C#/F# that could change the opinion of what is good/bad, rather than individuals that may disagree with either opinion in the blog post).

  Read the article

• Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

  - by Joshua Harris

  I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

  Read the article

• From a DDD perspective is a report generating service a domain service or an infrastructure service?

  - by Songo

  Let assume we have the following service whose responsibility is to generate Excel reports: class ExcelReportService{ public String generateReport(String fileFormatFilePath, ResultSet data){ ReportFormat reportFormat = new ReportFormat(fileFormatFilePath); ExcelDataFormatterService excelDataFormatterService = new ExcelDataFormatterService(); FormattedData formattedData = excelDataFormatterService.format(data); ExcelFileService excelFileService = new ExcelFileService(); String reportPath= excelFileService.generateReport(reportFormat,formattedData); return reportPath; } } This is pseudo code for the service I want to design where: fileFormatFilePath: path to a configuration file where I'll keep the format of my excel file (headers, column widths, number of columns,..etc) data: the actual records returned from the database. This data can't be used directly coz I might need to make further calculations to the data before inserting them to the excel file. ReportFormat: Value object to hold the report format, has methods like getHeaders(), getColumnWidth(),...etc. ExcelDataFormatterService: a service to hold any logic that need to be applied to the data returned from the database before inserting it to the file. FormattedData: Value object the represents the formatted data to be inserted. ExcelFileService: a wrapper top the 3rd party library that generates the excel file. Now how do you determine whether a service is an infrastructure or domain service? I have the following 3 services here: ExcelReportService, ExcelDataFormatterService and ExcelFileService?

  Read the article

• An ideal way to decode JSON documents in C?

  - by AzizAG

  Assuming I have an API to consume that uses JSON as a data transmission method, what is an ideal way to decode the JSON returned by each API resource? For example, in Java I'd create a class for each API resource then initiate an object of that class and consume data from it. for example: class UserJson extends JsonParser { public function UserJson(String document) { /*Initial document parsing goes here...*/ } //A bunch of getter methods . . . . } The probably do something like this: UserJson userJson = new UserJson(jsonString);//Initial parsing goes in the constructor String username = userJson.getName();//Parse JSON name property then return it as a String. Or when using a programming language with associative arrays(i.e., hash table) the decoding process doesn't require creating a class: (PHP) $userJson = json_decode($jsonString);//Decode JSON as key=>value $username = $userJson['name']; But, when I'm programming in procedural programming languages (C), I can't go with either method, since C is neither OOP nor supports associative arrays(by default, at least). What is the "correct" method of parsing pre-defined JSON strings(i.e., JSON documents specified by the API provider via examples or documentation)? The method I'm currently using is creating a file for each API resource to parse, the problem with this method is that it's basically a lousy version of the OOP method, as it looks exactly like the OOP method but doesn't provide any OOP benefits(e.g., can't pass an object of the parser, etc.). I've been thinking about encapsulating each API resource parser file in a publicly accessed structure(pointing all functions/publicly usable variables to the structure) then accessing the parser file code from within the structure(parser.parse(), parser.getName(), etc.). As this way looks a bit better than the my current method, it still just a rip off the OOP way, isn't it? Any suggestions for methods to parse JSON documents on procedural programming lanauges? Any comments on the methods I'm currently using(either 3 of them)?

  Read the article

• Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

  - by tylerl

  I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

  Read the article

• Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

  - by Mik378

  I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

  Read the article

• Composing programs from small simple pieces: OOP vs Functional Programming

  - by Jay Godse

  I started programming when imperative programming languages such as C were virtually the only game in town for paid gigs. I'm not a computer scientist by training so I was only exposed to Assembler and Pascal in school, and not Lisp or Prolog. Over the 1990s, Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) became more popular because one of the marketing memes for OOP was that complex programs could be composed of loosely coupled but well-defined, well-tested, cohesive, and reusable classes and objects. And in many cases that is quite true. Once I learned object-oriented programming my C programs became better because I structured them more like classes and objects. In the last few years (2008-2014) I have programmed in Ruby, an OOP language. However, Ruby has many functional programming (FP) features such as lambdas and procs, which enable a different style of programming using recursion, currying, lazy evaluation and the like. (Through ignorance I am at a loss to explain why these techniques are so great). Very recently, I have written code to use methods from the Ruby Enumerable library, such as map(), reduce(), and select(). Apparently this is a functional style of programming. I have found that using these methods significantly reduce code volume, and make my code easier to debug. Upon reading more about FP, one of the marketing claims made by advocates is that FP enables developers to compose programs out of small well-defined, well-tested, and reusable functions, which leads to less buggy code, and low code volume. QUESTIONS: Is the composition of complex program by using FP techniques contradictory to or complementary to composition of a complex program by using OOP techniques? In which situations is OOP more effective, and when is FP more effective? Is it possible to use both techniques in the same complex program? Do the techniques overlap or contradict each other?

  Read the article

• How to REALLY start thinking in terms of objects?

  - by Mr Grieves

  I work with a team of developers who all have several years of experience with languages such as C# and Java. Most of them are young enough to have been shown OOP as a standard way to develop software in university and are very comfortable with concepts such as inheritance, abstraction, encapsulation and polymorphism. Yet, many of them, and I have to include myself, still tend to create classes which are meant to be used in a very functional fashion. The resulting software is often several smaller classes which correctly represent business objects which get passed through larger classes which only supply ways to modify and use those objects (functions). Large complex difficult-to-maintain classes named Manager are usually the result of such behaviour. I can see two theoretical reasons why people might write this type of code: It's easy to start thinking of everything in terms of the database Deep down, for me, a computer handling a web request feels more like a functional operation than an object oriented operation when you think about Request Handlers, Threads, Processes, CPU Cores and CPU operations... I want source code which is easy to read and easy to modify. I have seen excellent examples of OO code which meet these objectives. How can I start writing code like this? How I can I really start thinking in an object oriented fashion? How can I share such a mentality with my colleagues?

  Read the article

• Data classes: getters and setters or different method design

  - by Frog

  I've been trying to design an interface for a data class I'm writing. This class stores styles for characters, for example whether the character is bold, italic or underlined. But also the font-size and the font-family. So it has different types of member variables. The easiest way to implement this would be to add getters and setters for every member variable, but this just feels wrong to me. It feels way more logical (and more OOP) to call style.format(BOLD, true) instead of style.setBold(true). So to use logical methods insteads of getters/setters. But I am facing two problems while implementing these methods: I would need a big switch statement with all member variables, since you can't access a variable by the contents of a string in C++. Moreover, you can't overload by return type, which means you can't write one getter like style.getFormatting(BOLD) (I know there are some tricks to do this, but these don't allow for parameters, which I would obviously need). However, if I would implement getters and setters, there are also issues. I would have to duplicate quite some code because styles can also have a parent styles, which means the getters have to look not only at the member variables of this style, but also at the variables of the parent styles. Because I wasn't able to figure out how to do this, I decided to ask a question a couple of weeks ago. See Object Oriented Programming: getters/setters or logical names. But in that question I didn't stress it would be just a data object and that I'm not making a text rendering engine, which was the reason one of the people that answered suggested I ask another question while making that clear (because his solution, the decorator pattern, isn't suitable for my problem). So please note that I'm not creating my own text rendering engine, I just use these classes to store data. Because I still haven't been able to find a solution to this problem I'd like to ask this question again: how would you design a styles class like this? And why would you do that? Thanks on forehand!

  Read the article

• How to implement isValid correctly?

  - by Songo

  I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

  Read the article

• How to model an address type in DDD?

  - by Songo

  I have an User entity that has a Set of Address where Address is a value object: class User{ ... private Set<Address> addresses; ... public setAddresses(Set<Address> addresses){ //set all addresses as a batch } ... } A User can have a home address and a work address, so I should have something that acts as a look up in the database: tbl_address_type ------------------------------------------------ | address_type_id | address_type | ------------------------------------------------ | 1 | work | ------------------------------------------------ | 2 | home | ------------------------------------------------ and correspondingly tbl_address ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | address_id | address_description |address_type_id| user_id | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 1 | 123 main street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 2 | 456 another street | 1 | 100 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 3 | 789 long street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 4 | 023 short street | 2 | 200 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should the address type be modeled as an Entity or Value type? and Why? Is it OK for the Address Value object to hold a reference to the Entity AdressType (in case it was modeled as an entity)? Is this something feasible using Hibernate/NHibernate? If a user can change his home address, should I expose a User.updateHomeAddress(Address homeAddress) function on the User entity itself? How can I enforce that the client passes a Home address and not a work address in this case? (a sample implementation is most welcomed) If I want to get the User's home address via User.getHomeAddress() function, must I load the whole addresses array then loop it and check each for its type till I found the correct type then return it? Is there a more efficient way than this?

  Read the article

• What's faster? select [object] or select new {[object].value1, [object].value2} with linq

  - by Darcy

  I was hoping some of you guru's out there know the answer to this question. Which is faster? A or B A: var item = from d in database select d; B: var item = from d in database select new {d.item1, d.item2}; SEEMINGLY, it seems like selecting part of the table object would be faster than selecting the entire object, but something tells me its not necessarily the case.

  Read the article

• SQL SERVER – SSMS: Top Object and Batch Execution Statistics Reports

  - by Pinal Dave

  The month of June till mid of July has been the fever of sports. First, it was Wimbledon Tennis and then the Soccer fever was all over. There is a huge number of fan followers and it is great to see the level at which people sometimes worship these sports. Being an Indian, I cannot forget to mention the India tour of England later part of July. Following these sports and as the events unfold to the finals, there are a number of ways the statisticians can slice and dice the numbers. Cue from soccer I can surely say there is a team performance against another team and then there is individual member fairs against a particular opponent. Such statistics give us a fair idea to how a team in the past or in the recent past has fared against each other, head-to-head stats during World cup and during other neutral venue games. All these statistics are just pointers. In reality, they don’t reflect the calibre of the current team because the individuals who performed in each of these games are totally different (Typical example being the Brazil Vs Germany semi-final match in FIFA 2014). So at times these numbers are misleading. It is worth investigating and get the next level information. Similar to these statistics, SQL Server Management studio is also equipped with a number of reports like a) Object Execution Statistics report and b) Batch Execution Statistics reports. As discussed in the example, the team scorecard is like the Batch Execution statistics and individual stats is like Object Level statistics. The analogy can be taken only this far, trust me there is no correlation between SQL Server functioning and playing sports – It is like I think about diet all the time except while I am eating. Performance – Batch Execution Statistics Let us view the first report which can be invoked from Server Node -> Reports -> Standard Reports -> Performance – Batch Execution Statistics. Most of the values that are displayed in this report come from the DMVs sys.dm_exec_query_stats and sys.dm_exec_sql_text(sql_handle). This report contains 3 distinctive sections as outline below.   Section 1: This is a graphical bar graph representation of Average CPU Time, Average Logical reads and Average Logical Writes for individual batches. The Batch numbers are indicative and the details of individual batch is available in section 3 (detailed below). Section 2: This represents a Pie chart of all the batches by Total CPU Time (%) and Total Logical IO (%) by batches. This graphical representation tells us which batch consumed the highest CPU and IO since the server started, provided plan is available in the cache. Section 3: This is the section where we can find the SQL statements associated with each of the batch Numbers. This also gives us the details of Average CPU / Average Logical Reads and Average Logical Writes in the system for the given batch with object details. Expanding the rows, I will also get the # Executions and # Plans Generated for each of the queries. Performance – Object Execution Statistics The second report worth a look is Object Execution statistics. This is a similar report as the previous but turned on its head by SQL Server Objects. The report has 3 areas to look as above. Section 1 gives the Average CPU, Average IO bar charts for specific objects. The section 2 is a graphical representation of Total CPU by objects and Total Logical IO by objects. The final section details the various objects in detail with the Avg. CPU, IO and other details which are self-explanatory. At a high-level both the reports are based on queries on two DMVs (sys.dm_exec_query_stats and sys.dm_exec_sql_text) and it builds values based on calculations using columns in them: SELECT * FROM    sys.dm_exec_query_stats s1 CROSS APPLY sys.dm_exec_sql_text(sql_handle) AS s2 WHERE   s2.objectid IS NOT NULL AND DB_NAME(s2.dbid) IS NOT NULL ORDER BY  s1.sql_handle; This is one of the simplest form of reports and in future blogs we will look at more complex reports. I truly hope that these reports can give DBAs and developers a hint about what is the possible performance tuning area. As a closing point I must emphasize that all above reports pick up data from the plan cache. If a particular query has consumed a lot of resources earlier, but plan is not available in the cache, none of the above reports would show that bad query. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com)Filed under: SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL Tagged: SQL Reports

  Read the article

• AIA und die "IT Strategies from Oracle"

  - by Hans Viehmann

  Die Oracle Application Integration Architecture lässt sich gut nutzen, um eine SOA Initiative zügig zu starten. Naturgemäß berücksichtigt sie aber nicht alle Aspekte einer IT Strategie. Zu diesem Thema gibt es nun seit einigen Wochen eine umfassende Bibliothek von Handbüchern ("Practitioner's Guides") und Referenz-Architekturen, in denen die Erfahrung aus zahlreichen Projekten zusammengefasst ist.Hier ist beispielsweise ein IT Governance Framework beschrieben, das auch die wesentlichen Aspekte der SOA GovernanceSOA Portfolio GovernanceService Lifecycle GovernanceSOA Solution Lifecycle GovernanceSOA Vitality GovernanceSOA Organization Governancenäher beschreibt.In den Handbüchern sind zahlreiche wertvolle Hinweise und best practices enthalten; ich denke, es lohnt sich, einen Blick hinein zu werfen.Die gesamte Bibliothek findet sich unter http://www.oracle.com/goto/itstrategies; eine Übersicht über die verschiedenen Aspekte ist in dem Bild unten zusammengefasst.View image

  Read the article

• Problem with MVC3 application

  - by Pravin Patil

  I am working on MVC3 application. I use entity framework, NInject, Fluent Validation and some more Nuget packages. I am using Tortoise SVN for versioning. Recently I changed the structure of my SVN repository, so my working copy of MVC3 app was moved to some different folder in the repository. Now when I checked out the copy from SVN, all the references that I had added through Nuget were lost(EF, NInject and rest nuget packages were showing yellow missing icon in references). This had happened to me prior to this also, when I tried to check out the app from svn to some other folder. I had to manually add all the references again through Nuget again. Am I doing anything wrong? Please guide. I hope I could explain my problem properly.

  Read the article

• As a programmer, what would you use a personal Wiki for?

  - by Adam Harte

  Do any programmers out there keep a personal wiki? Either locally or online. What do you use your wiki for? or what might you use one for? I was thinking of starting a personal wiki as a place to record documentation and and other documents for my personal projects, and various notes etc, but how else is a personal (maybe private) Wiki useful to a programmer/developer? What type of things would you put in a personal Wiki?

  Read the article

• Why should ViewModel route actions to Controller when using the MVCVM pattern?

  - by Lea Hayes

  When reading examples across the Internet (including the MSDN reference) I have found that code examples are all doing the following type of thing: public class FooViewModel : BaseViewModel { public FooViewModel(FooController controller) { Controller = controller; } protected FooController Controller { get; private set; } public void PerformSuperAction() { // This just routes action to controller... Controller.SuperAction(); } ... } and then for the view: public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.PerformSuperAction(); } } Why do we not just do the following? public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.Controller.SuperAction(); // or, even just use a shortcut property: Controller.SuperAction(); } }

  Read the article

• Scrum got specific ways for testing software?

  - by joker13

  When reading Scrum Guide, as the official text for scrum, I find out there is no specific solution to provide software testing in scrum. (the only hint is on page15) I'm a little vague on whether scrum is considered a software development methodology or not? If it is not, then how come some of its practices opposes Extreme Programming? (I know that in scrum guide, the author notes that scrum is a framework not a methodology, but still I'm not pretty clear on that) And what's more, I'm not sure if there are any other important textbook that I'm missing so far about scrum. I need them to be official or of great deal of public acceptance.

  Read the article

• Share Mulitple Classes as one dll or a lib with Mulitple Projects

  - by JNL

  Currently I have some shared class files(.cpp and .h) which I include them in around 20 Projects. Currently I have to include them in all of the projects. So if I get some business requirments and I change some of the shared(.cpp or .h) files I have to include them in all the 20 Projects which is kind of tedious. Is there a way where I can create a shared dll or library and include it all of my Projects. So if I have to change it, I just have to change it once and then just Add Reference to include that dll or library which contains all the shared(.cpp, .h) files. Any help/recommendations regarding the same, will be highly appreciated. I am using VS2012 for VC++.

  Read the article

• Do delegates defy OOP

  - by Dave Rook

  I'm trying to understand OOP so I can write better OOP code and one thing which keeps coming up is this concept of a delegate (using .NET). I could have an object, which is totally self contained (encapsulated); it knows nothing of the outside world... but then I attach a delegate to it. In my head, this is still quite well separated as the delegate only knows what to reference, but this by itself means it has to know about something else outside it's world! That a method exists within another class! Have I got myself it total muddle here, or is this a grey area, or is this actually down to interpretation (and if so, sorry as that will be off topic I'm sure). My question is, do delegates defy/muddy the OOP pattern?

  Read the article

• How common are circular references? Would reference-counting GC work just fine?

  - by user9521

  How common are circular references? The less common they are, the fewer hard cases you have if you are writing in a language with only reference counting-GC. Are there any cases where it wouldn't work well to make one of the references a "weak" reference so that reference counting still works? It seems like you should be able to have a language only use reference counting and weak references and have things work just fine most of the time, with the goal of efficiency. You could also have tools to help you detect memory leaks caused by circular references. Thoughts, anyone? It seems that Python uses references counting (I don't know if it uses a tracing collector occasionally or not for sure) and I know that Vala uses reference counting with weak references; I know that it's been done before, but how well would it work?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >