Search Results

Search found 41035 results on 1642 pages for 'object oriented design'.

Page 49/1642 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

• problem in getting value of the object attribute in flex

  - by madanmohan

  i have an xml which contains 'interface' sub tag, iam converting xml to object using SampleXmlDecoder. compiler did not allow me to access the value of the 'inteface' attrible of the resultobject. var xml:XML = event.result as XML; var xmlDoc : XMLDocument = new XMLDocument(xml.toString()); var decoder : SimpleXMLDecoder = new SimpleXMLDecoder(true) var resultObj : Object = decoder.decodeXML(xmlDoc); var o:Object = new Object(); o.someprop = resultObj.maintag.item.interface; its treating interface as keyword. can anyone tell me the solution for this. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Sql Server Management Studio Object Explorer dissapeared - missing - vanished

  - by Felbus

  ok, my Sql Server Management Studio Object Explorer had dissapeared. I know the shortcut F8, and the view-object explorer method.. neither do anything, ive clicked everything on the keyboard, googled around, but nothing.. really need this back, its a massive hassle having to navigate through the summary window without the object explorer tree view! help meeeee...

  Read the article

• From Java Object class to C++

  - by Rui

  Hi, I'm relative new to C++ and my background is in Java. I have to port some code from Java to C++ and some doubts came up relative to the Object Java's class. So, if I want to port this: void Algorithm::setInputParameter(std::string name, Object object) { ..... } I believe I should use void* type or templates right? I don't know what's the "standard" procedure to accomplish it. Thanks

  Read the article

• C#. Binding object to object

  - by w1z

  Hello all, I develop the part of app functionality. I have the databinding object 'A' and another object 'B'. public class SomeProxy { public SomeProxy(BindingSource A) { var b = new B(); } } public class B { public int SomePropertyFromA{get;set;} //Some autocalculated propeties, that are based on SomePropertyFromA //I want to reculculate them, when the SomePropertyFromA will be changed } 'B' object culculates some values, based on the property 'a' of the 'A' object. I want to bind property in object 'B' to the same property 'a' in 'A'. It's need to handle on changes of the 'a' property, because some UI controls are binded to 'B'-s properties. How can I do this? Sorry for some oddness. Thanks

  Read the article

• Many-to-many relationship in oop

  - by Manu

  what is best way to model many-to-many relationship? lets say we have a two classes , Team and Player any given Player can be in multiple Team s any Team can have as many Player s as they like I like to call methods like playerX.getTeamList() to get the list of all the Team s he/she is in teamY.getPlayerList() to get the list of all the Player s in the team (or have some other way to do this effectively) I can think of two ways of doing this , but they just don't feels like good oop pattens. can you think of any good ways , perhaps a design patten ?

  Read the article

• Should I share UI for objects that use common fields?

  - by wb

  I have a parent class that holds all of the fields that are common between all device types. From that, I have a few derived classes that each hold their unique fields. Say I have device type "Switch" and "Transformer". Both derived classes only have 2-3 of their own unique fields. When doing the UI design (windows forms) in this case. Should I create two separate forms for each device type or create a user control with all fields that are shared among all devices? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Removing object/array difference from different arrays [duplicate]

  - by Kay Singian

  This question already has an answer here: remove objects from array by object property 3 answers I have two JavaScript objects: object_1 = [ {'value': '9:00', 'text':'9:00 am', 'eventtime':'09:00:00' }, {'value': '9:30', 'text':'9:30 am', 'eventtime':'09:30:00' }, {'value': '10:00', 'text':'10:00 am', 'eventtime':'10:00:00' }, {'value': '10:30', 'text':'10:30 am', 'eventtime':'10:30:00' }, {'value': '11:00', 'text':'11:00 am', 'eventtime':'11:00:00' }, {'value': '11:30', 'text':'11:30 am', 'eventtime':'11:30:00' }, ]; object_2 = [ {'eventtime': '10:30:00'}, {'eventtime': '11:00:00'} ]; I want to remove the object in object_1 which has the same eventtime value and store it in a new array/object . Please help me do so, I cant find a solution to this. This will be the new array/object: object_new = [ {'value': '9:00', 'text':'9:00 am', 'eventtime':'09:00:00' }, {'value': '9:30', 'text':'9:30 am', 'eventtime':'09:30:00' }, {'value': '10:00', 'text':'10:00 am', 'eventtime':'10:00:00' }, {'value': '11:30', 'text':'11:30 am', 'eventtime':'11:30:00' }, ];

  Read the article

• Entity Framework and multi-tenancy database design

  - by Junto

  I am looking at multi-tenancy database schema design for an SaaS concept. It will be ASP.NET MVC - EF, but that isn't so important. Below you can see an example database schema (the Tenant being the Company). The CompanyId is replicated throughout the schema and the primary key has been placed on both the natural key, plus the tenant Id. Plugging this schema into the Entity Framework gives the following errors when I add the tables into the Entity Model file (Model1.edmx): The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_Order_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' of the table 'Order'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Customer' uses the set of foreign keys '{CustomerId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Order' uses the set of foreign keys '{OrderId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The relationship 'FK_OrderLine_Product' uses the set of foreign keys '{ProductId, CompanyId}' that are partially contained in the set of primary keys '{OrderLineId, CompanyId}' of the table 'OrderLine'. The set of foreign keys must be fully contained in the set of primary keys, or fully not contained in the set of primary keys to be mapped to a model. The question is in two parts: Is my database design incorrect? Should I refrain from these compound primary keys? I'm questioning my sanity regarding the fundamental schema design (frazzled brain syndrome). Please feel free to suggest the 'idealized' schema. Alternatively, if the database design is correct, then is EF unable to match the keys because it perceives these foreign keys as a potential mis-configured 1:1 relationships (incorrectly)? In which case, is this an EF bug and how can I work around it?

  Read the article

• How should I design my database API commands? [closed]

  - by WebDev

  I am developing a database API for a project, with commands for getting data from the database. For example, I have one gib table, so the command for that is: getgib name alias limit fields If the user pass their name: getgib rahul Then it will return all gib data whose name is like rahul. If an alias is given then it will return all the gib owned by the user whose alias (userid) was given. I want to design the commands: limit: to limit the record in query, fields: extra fields I want to add in the select query. So now the commands are set, but: I want the gibs by the gibid, so how to make this or any suggestion to improve my command is welcome. If the user doesn't want to specify the name, and he wants only the gibs by providing alias, then what separator should I use instead of name?

  Read the article

• Class Design -- Multiple Calls from One Method or One Call from Multiple Methods?

  - by Andrew

  I've been working on some code recently that interfaces with a CMS we use and it's presented me with a question on class design that I think is applicable in a number of situations. Essentially, what I am doing is extracting information from the CMS and transforming this information into objects that I can use programatically for other purposes. This consists of two steps: Retrieve the data from the CMS (we have a DAL that I use, so this is essentially just specifying what data from the CMS I want--no connection logic or anything like that) Map the parsed data to my own [C#] objects There are basically two ways I can approach this: One call from multiple methods public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(); // Do other stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); List<MyObject> mappedObjects = new List<MyObject>(); // do stuff to map the CmsDataItems to MyObjects return mappedObjects; } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { List<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = new List<CmsDataItem>(); // do stuff to get the CmsDataItems I want return cmsDataItems; } Multiple calls from one method public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(cmsDataItems); // do stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects(IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> itemsToMap) { // ... } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { // ... } I am tempted to say that the latter is better than the former, as GetMyObjects does not depend on GetCmsDataItems, and it is explicit in the calling method the steps that are executed to retrieve the objects (I'm concerned that the first approach is kind of an object-oriented version of spaghetti code). On the other hand, the two helper methods are never going to be used outside of the class, so I'm not sure if it really matters whether one depends on the other. Furthermore, I like the fact that in the first approach the objects can be retrieved from one line-- most likely anyone working with the main method doesn't care how the objects are retrieved, they just need to retrieve the objects, and the "daisy chained" helper methods hide the exact steps needed to retrieve them (in practice, I actually have a few more methods but am still able to retrieve the object collection I want in one line). Is one of these methods right and the other wrong? Or is it simply a matter of preference or context dependent?

  Read the article

• How to Design a Relational Database; PASS Precon Swag and it’s “Symbolism”

  - by drsql

  Update! 10 more books added to the cadre from my friends at Red-Gate. With less than a week to go, I am starting to pack up for Charlotte and PASS 2013. I love that it is in Charlotte this year so I can drive and bring along some goodies to give away. Books and toys mostly, a variety of which were chosen rather specifically for some manner of symbolism with a tie in to database design for the most part. (Okay, symbolism is perhaps a bit of a stretch, but I have tied everything, even the goofy stuff,...(read more)

  Read the article

• Name of web design technique with vertically contiguous but separate screen-sized blocks?

  - by Chad Schultz

  I don't know the proper name for this, which makes it hard to Google it or describe this. On a site like http://p2theme.com/ as you scroll down you see that content is arranged into screen-sized chunks, each with its own chunk of content, each with a different background color, making them visually distinctive. I've seen this used more and more frequently on websites, but don't know what it's called. People have tried telling me "responsive design" or "flat UI" or "infinite scroll" or "parallax" -- but those are completely different things. What do you call this technique?

  Read the article

• Design for future changes or solve the problem at hand.

  - by Naveen

  While writing the code or during design do you try to generalize the problem at the first instance itself or try to solve that very specific problem. I am asking this because, trying to generalize the problem tends to complicate the things (which may not be necessary) and on the otherhand it will be very difficult to extend the specific solution if there is a change in the requirement. I guess the solution is to find the middle path which is easier said than done. How do you tackle this type of problem ? If you start generalizing it at what point of time you know that this much of generalization is sufficient ?

  Read the article

• Getting My Head Around Immutability

  - by Michael Mangold

  I'm new to object-oriented programming, and one concept that has been taking me a while to grasp is immutability. I think the light bulb went off last night but I want to verify: When I come across statements that an immutable object cannot be changed, I'm puzzled because I can, for instance, do the following: NSString *myName = @"Bob"; myName = @"Mike"; There, I just changed myName, of immutable type NSString. My problem is that the word, "object" can refer to the physical object in memory, or the abstraction, "myName." The former definition applies to the concept of immutability. As for the variable, a more clear (to me) definition of immutability is that the value of an immutable object can only be changed by also changing its location in memory, i.e. its reference (also known as its pointer). Is this correct, or am I still lost in the woods?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to design a multiplayer game which can be played from different devices?

  - by user9820

  I want to design a online multiplayer game for all gaming devices e.g. Desktop PC, internet browser, android phones, android tablets, iphone, ipad, XBOX 360 etc. Now my main requirement is that, I want all devices can be used to play the game in multiplayer mode toghether i.e. One player can be connected using PC another using android phone and other may be with iphone or ipad. My doubts are - How to make all devices to connect to common game server? What will be the logic for graphics and texture because all devices screen will be of different aspect ratio?

  Read the article

• How would you design an application with many target platforms and devices?

  - by Pierre 303

  I'm in a very beginning of the design phase of an application that will have to run in the following platforms/devices: Desktop: Windows, Linux & Mac Mobile: Android, iPhone/iPad & Windows Phone 7 Web: Silverlight I will use C# on Mono and I want to maximize code re-usability. Except for the desktop (I'll use WinForms/GTK#), my concern is related to many different GUI that I will face. What would be your approach? Obviously, the views will be different, but what about the controllers, data access, utility classes, etc. Is it really acceptable to share everything but the views?

  Read the article

• Are the technologies used in an application part of the architecture, or do they represent implementation/detailed design details?

  - by m3th0dman

  When designing and writing documentation for a project an architecture needs to be clearly defined: what are the high-level modules of the system, what are their responsibilities, how do they communicate with each other, what protocols are used etc. But in this list, should the concrete technologies be specified or this is actually an implementation detail and need to be specified at a lower level? For example, consider a distributed application that has two modules which communicate asynchronously via AMQP protocol, mediated by a message broker. The fact that these modules use the Spring AMQP library for sending and receiving messages is a fact that needs to be specified in the architecture or is a lower-level detailed design/implementation detail?

  Read the article

• Is Domain Driven Design useful / productive for not so complex domains?

  - by Elijah

  When assessing a potential project at work, I suggested that it might be advantageous to use a domain driven design approach to its object model. The project does not have an excessively complex domain, so my coworker threw this at me: It has been said, that DDD is favorable in instances where there is a complex domain model (“...It applies whenever we are operating in a complex, intricate domain” Eric Evans). What I'm lost on is - how you define the complexity of a domain? Can it be defined by the number of aggregate roots in the domain model? Is the complexity of a domain in the interaction of objects? The domain that we are assessing is related online publishing and content management.

  Read the article

• What design pattern do you use to support graceful fallback on old platforms?

  - by JoJo

  Let's say I need to add a drop shadow behind a box. Some old platforms do not support drop shadows, so I have to fake it by putting an image behind the box. Here's the pseudo code of how I'm currently handling this fallback: if (dropShadowsAreSupported) { box.addDropShadow("black"); } else { box.putImageBehindIt("gaussianBlur.png"); } Is this the right way to handle it? It seems too amateur to me. Is there a better design pattern?

  Read the article

• If all variables are a subset of the superkey, is the database design 5NF? [migrated]

  - by Lukazoid

  I have a table called LogMessages, which has the following columns: Level A numeric value which represents Trace, Debug, Info, Warning, Error or Fatal Time A UTC time Message Foreign key to a Messages table Source Foreign key to a Sources table User Foreign key to a Users table From what I can see, all of these columns are a part of the super key; if any single value differs to an existing row, a new row can be created. My question is, does this design comply to fifth normal form? I am unsure as some groups of data will be repeating, however I don't believe this violates 5NF? (correct me if I'm wrong)

  Read the article

• How are design-by-contract and property-based testing (QuickCheck) related?

  - by Todd Owen

  Is their only similarity the fact that they are not xUnit (or more precisely, not based on enumerating specific test cases), or is it deeper than that? Property-based testing (using QuickCheck, ScalaCheck, etc) seem well-suited to a functional programming style where side-effects are avoided. On the other hand, Design by Contract (as implemented in Eiffel) is more suited to OOP languages: you can express post-conditions about the effects of methods, not just their return values. But both of them involve testing assertions that are true in general (rather than assertions that should be true for a specific test case). And both can be tested using randomly generated inputs (with QuickCheck this is the only way, whereas with Eiffel I believe it is an optional feature of the AutoTest tool). Is there an umbrella term to encompass both approaches? Or am I imagining a relationship that doesn't really exist.

  Read the article

• How far can you get in iOS without learning PhotoShop or another graphic design program? [on hold]

  - by Aerovistae

  I'm in the process of learning iOS, and I'm coming from a web dev background where CSS controls 70-90% of the UI, and Python/C++ desktop dev where there are highly customizable UI toolkits for most things. I'm trying to figure out how people make good-looking apps without graphic design skills. You always hear about some 8 year old or 14 year old who made a successful app. So I assume that even if the required code was relatively basic, the app must have looked good if it was a success. But I find it really unlikely that these kids have advanced PhotoShop skills as well as having learned iOS programming at such a young age. Frankly, the same goes for most independent app developers....as they say, unicorns don't exist. So what's the deal? Can you make a good-looking, market quality app without those skills? What are the limitations?

  Read the article

• Main class passes dbConn obj to all its services, I need to change the dbConn for one of its services. - suggestion for design pattern

  - by tech_learner

  There is this main class and there are several services ( which uses db connection to retrieve data ) These services are initialized in the main class db properties are obtained from the property file and then dbconnection is opened by calling a method dbOpen() written in the main class and the resultant connection object is set to the service objects by iterating through the list of services and by calling setConnection method on the service note: that the services are instantiated in the main class and the main class is not a superclass for services. I also need to mention that there is this recycle db connection scenario only main class is aware of. /** connects to DB, optionally recycling existing connection), * throws RuntimeException if unable to connect */ private void connectDb(boolean recycle) { try { if (recycle) { log.status( log.getSB().append("Recycling DB Connection") ); closeDb(); } openDb(); for ( int i = 0 ; i < service.length ; i++ ) { service[i].setConnection(db); } } One of the service needs to use a different database, what is the best design pattern to use?

  Read the article

• Are there any resources for motion-planning puzzle design?

  - by Salano Software

  Some background: I'm poking at a set of puzzles along the lines of Rush Hour/Sokoban/etc; for want of a better description, call them 'motion planning' puzzles - the player has to figure out the correct sequence of moves to achieve a particular configuration. (It's the sort of puzzle that's generically PSPACE-complete if that actually helps anyone's mental image). While I have a few straightforward 'building blocks' that I can use for puzzle crafting and I have a few basic examples put together, I'm trying to figure out how to avoid too much sameness over a large swath of these kinds of puzzles, and I'm also trying to figure out how to make puzzles that have more of a feel of logical solution than trial-and-error. Does anyone know of good resources out there for designing instances of this sort of puzzle once the core puzzle rules are in place? Most of what I've found on puzzle design only covers creating the puzzle rules, not building interesting puzzles out of a set of rules.

  Read the article

• "Never do in code what you can get the SQL server to do well for you" - Is this a recipe for a bad design?

  - by PhonicUK

  It's an idea I've heard repeated in a handful of places. Some more or less acknowledging that once trying to solve a problem purely in SQL exceeds a certain level of complexity you should indeed be handling it in code. The logic behind the idea is that for the large majority of cases, the database engine will do a better job at finding the most efficient way of completing your task than you could in code. Especially when it comes to things like making the results conditional on operations performed on the data. Arguably with modern engines effectively JIT'ing + caching the compiled version of your query it'd make sense on the surface. The question is whether or not leveraging your database engine in this way is inherently bad design practice (and why). The lines become blurred further when all the logic exists inside the database and you're just hitting it via an ORM.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >