Search Results

Search found 58985 results on 2360 pages for 'value object'.

Page 5/2360 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Is this proper OO design for C++?

    - by user121917
    I recently took a software processes course and this is my first time attempting OO design on my own. I am trying to follow OO design principles and C++ conventions. I attempted and gave up on MVC for this application, but I am trying to "decouple" my classes such that they can be easily unit-tested and so that I can easily change the GUI library used and/or the target OS. At this time, I have finished designing classes but have not yet started implementing methods. The function of the software is to log all packets sent and received, and display them on the screen (like WireShark, but for one local process only). The software accomplishes this by hooking the send() and recv() functions in winsock32.dll, or some other pair of analogous functions depending on what the intended Target is. The hooks add packets to SendPacketList/RecvPacketList. The GuiLogic class starts a thread which checks for new packets. When new packets are found, it utilizes the PacketFilter class to determine the formatting for the new packet, and then sends it to MainWindow, a native win32 window (with intent to later port to Qt).1 Full size image of UML class diagram Here are my classes in skeleton/header form (this is my actual code): class PacketModel { protected: std::vector<byte> data; int id; public: PacketModel(); PacketModel(byte* data, unsigned int size); PacketModel(int id, byte* data, unsigned int size); int GetLen(); bool IsValid(); //len >= sizeof(opcode_t) opcode_t GetOpcode(); byte* GetData(); //returns &(data[0]) bool GetData(byte* outdata, int maxlen); void SetData(byte* pdata, int len); int GetId(); void SetId(int id); bool ParseData(char* instr); bool StringRepr(char* outstr); byte& operator[] (const int index); }; class SendPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* returnAddy; public: byte* GetReturnAddy(); void SetReturnAddy(byte* addy); }; class RecvPacket : public PacketModel { protected: byte* callAddy; public: byte* GetCallAddy(); void SetCallAddy(byte* addy); }; //problem: packets may be added to list at any time by any number of threads //solution: critical section associated with each packet list class Synch { public: void Enter(); void Leave(); }; template<class PacketType> class PacketList { private: static const int MAX_STORED_PACKETS = 1000; public: static const int DEFAULT_SHOWN_PACKETS = 100; private: vector<PacketType> list; Synch synch; //wrapper for critical section public: void AddPacket(PacketType* packet); PacketType* GetPacket(int id); int TotalPackets(); }; class SendPacketList : PacketList<SendPacket> { }; class RecvPacketList : PacketList<RecvPacket> { }; class Target //one socket { bool Send(SendPacket* packet); bool Inject(RecvPacket* packet); bool InitSendHook(SendPacketList* sendList); bool InitRecvHook(RecvPacketList* recvList); }; class FilterModel { private: opcode_t opcode; int colorID; bool bFilter; char name[41]; }; class FilterFile { private: FilterModel filter; public: void Save(); void Load(); FilterModel* GetFilter(opcode_t opcode); }; class PacketFilter { private: FilterFile filters; public: bool IsFiltered(opcode_t opcode); bool GetName(opcode_t opcode, char* namestr); //return false if name does not exist COLORREF GetColor(opcode_t opcode); //return default color if no custom color }; class GuiLogic { private: SendPacketList sendList; RecvPacketList recvList; PacketFilter packetFilter; void GetPacketRepr(PacketModel* packet); void ReadNew(); void AddToWindow(); public: void Refresh(); //called from thread void GetPacketInfo(int id); //called from MainWindow }; I'm looking for a general review of my OO design, use of UML, and use of C++ features. I especially just want to know if I'm doing anything considerably wrong. From what I've read, design review is on-topic for this site (and off-topic for the Code Review site). Any sort of feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this.

    Read the article

  • Securing Flexfield Value Sets in EBS 12.2

    - by Sara Woodhull
    Release 12.2 includes a new feature: flexfield value set security. This new feature gives you additional options for ensuring that different administrators have non-overlapping responsibilities, which in turn provides checks and balances for sensitive activities.  Separation of Duties (SoD) is one of the key concepts of internal controls and is a requirement for many regulations including: Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) European Union Data Protection Directive. Its primary intent is to put barriers in place to prevent fraud or theft by an individual acting alone. Implementing Separation of Duties requires minimizing the possibility that users could modify data across application functions where the users should not normally have access. For flexfields and report parameters in Oracle E-Business Suite, values in value sets can affect functionality such as the rollup of accounting data, job grades used at a company, and so on. Controlling access to the creation or modification of value set values can be an important piece of implementing Separation of Duties in an organization. New Flexfield Value Set Security feature Flexfield value set security allows system administrators to restrict users from viewing, adding or updating values in specific value sets. Value set security enables role-based separation of duties for key flexfields, descriptive flexfields, and report parameters. For example, you can set up value set security such that certain users can view or insert values for any value set used by the Accounting Flexfield but no other value sets, while other users can view and update values for value sets used for any flexfields in Oracle HRMS. You can also segregate access by Operating Unit as well as by role or responsibility.Value set security uses a combination of data security and role-based access control in Oracle User Management. Flexfield value set security provides a level of security that is different from the previously-existing and similarly-named features in Oracle E-Business Suite: Function security controls whether a user has access to a specific page or form, as well as what operations the user can do in that screen. Flexfield value security controls what values a user can enter into a flexfield segment or report parameter (by responsibility) during routine data entry in many transaction screens across Oracle E-Business Suite. Flexfield value set security (this feature, new in Release 12.2) controls who can view, insert, or update values for a particular value set (by flexfield, report, or value set) in the Segment Values form (FNDFFMSV). The effect of flexfield value set security is that a user of the Segment Values form will only be able to view those value sets for which the user has been granted access. Further, the user will be able to insert or update/disable values in that value set if the user has been granted privileges to do so.  Flexfield value set security affects independent, dependent, and certain table-validated value sets for flexfields and report parameters. Initial State of the Feature upon Upgrade Because this is a new security feature, it is turned on by default.  When you initially install or upgrade to Release 12.2.2, no users are allowed to view, insert or update any value set values (users may even think that their values are missing or invalid because they cannot see the values).  You must explicitly set up access for specific users by enabling appropriate grants and roles for those users.We recommend using flexfield value set security as part of a comprehensive Separation of Duties strategy. However, if you choose not to implement flexfield value set security upon upgrading to or installing Release 12.2, you can enable backwards compatibility--users can access any value sets if they have access to the Values form--after you upgrade. The feature does not affect day-to-day transactions that use flexfields.  However, you must either set up specific grants and roles or enable backwards compatibility before users can create new values or update or disable existing values. For more information, see: Release 12.2 Flexfield Value Set Security Documentation Update for Patch 17305947:R12.FND.C (Document 1589204.1) R12.2 TOI: Implement and Use Application Object Library (AOL) - Flexfields Security and Separation of Duties for Value Sets (recorded training)

    Read the article

  • When modeling a virtual circuit board, what is the best design pattern to check for cycles?

    - by Wallace Brown
    To make it simple assume you have only AND and OR gates. Each has two inputs and one output. The output of two inputs can be used as an input for the next gate For example: A AND B - E C AND D - F E OR F - G Assuming an arbitrary number of gates, we want to check if the circuit ever connects back into itself at an earlier state? For example: E AND F - A This should be illegal since it creates an endless cycle. What design pattern would best be able to check for these cycles?

    Read the article

  • Requesting feedback on my OO design

    - by Prog
    I'm working on an application that creates music by itself. I'm seeking feedback for my OO design so far. This question will focus on one part of the program. The application produces Tune objects, that are the final musical products. Tune is an abstract class with an abstract method play. It has two subclasses: SimpleTune and StructuredTune. SimpleTune owns a Melody and a Progression (chord sequence). It's play implementation plays these two objects simultaneously. StructuredTune owns two Tune instances. It's own play plays the two Tunes one after the other according to a pattern (currently only ABAB). Melody is an abstract class with an abstract play method. It has two subclasses: SimpleMelody and StructuredMelody. SimpleMelody is composed of an array of notes. Invoking play on it plays these notes one after the other. StructuredMelody is composed of an array of Melody objects. Invoking play on it plays these Melodyies one after the other. I think you're starting to see the pattern. Progression is also an abstract class with a play method and two subclasses: SimpleProgression and StructuredProgression, each composed differently and played differently. SimpleProgression owns an array of chords and plays them sequentially. StructuredProgression owns an array of Progressions and it's play implementation plays them sequentially. Every class has a corresponding Generator class. Tune, Melody and Progression are matched with corresponding abstract TuneGenerator, MelodyGenerator and ProgressionGenerator classes, each with an abstract generate method. For example MelodyGenerator defines an abstract Melody generate method. Each of the generators has two subclasses, Simple and Structured. So for example MelodyGenerator has a subclasses SimpleMelodyGenerator, with an implementation of generate that returns a SimpleMelody. (It's important to note that the generate methods encapsulate complex algorithms. They are more than mere factory method. For example SimpleProgressionGenerator.generate() implements an algorithm to compose a series of Chord objects, which are used to instantiate the returned SimpleProgression). Every Structured generator uses another generator internally. It is a Simple generator be default, but in special cases may be a Structured generator. Parts of this design are meant to allow the end-user through the GUI to choose what kind of music is to be created. For example the user can choose between a "simple tune" (SimpleTuneGenerator) and a "full tune" (StructuredTuneGenerator). Other parts of the system aren't subject to direct user-control. What do you think of this design from an OOD perspective? What potential problems do you see with this design? Please share with me your criticism, I'm here to learn. Apart from this, a more specific question: the "every class has a corresponding Generator class" part feels very wrong. However I'm not sure how I could design this differently and achieve the same flexibility. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Books, resources and so on about GUI architecture [on hold]

    - by Moses
    I'm making first steps in GUI programming. Earlier I've had little experience with GUI and I remember that it was kind of pain. Code was either coupled or to verbose with tons of "Listeners". It seems to me that problem in me and not in a library that I used(Swing). So, could you recommend me some books, tutorials or resources where I can find how to design gui programms? Emphasize that I'm interested in architecture and not in how to use components of some framework(which about 90% of tutorials that I've ever seen).

    Read the article

  • Switch vs Polymorphism when dealing with model and view

    - by Raphael Oliveira
    I can't figure out a better solution to my problem. I have a view controller that presents a list of elements. Those elements are models that can be an instance of B, C, D, etc and inherit from A. So in that view controller, each item should go to a different screen of the application and pass some data when the user select one of them. The two alternatives that comes to my mind are (please ignore the syntax, it is not a specific language) 1) switch (I know that sucks) //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); switch(a.type) { case b: B b = (B)a; go to screen X; x.v1 = b.v1; // fill X with b data x.v2 = b.v2; case c: go to screen Y; etc... } } 2) polymorphism //inside the view controller void onClickItem(int index) { A a = items.get(index); Screen s = new (a.getDestinationScreen()); //ignore the syntax s.v1 = a.v1; // fill s with information about A s.v2 = a.v2; show(s); } //inside B Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(X); } //inside C Class getDestinationScreen(void) { return Class(Y); } My problem with solution 2 is that since B, C, D, etc are models, they shouldn't know about view related stuff. Or should they in that case?

    Read the article

  • OOD: All classes at bottom of hierarchy contain the same field

    - by My Head Hurts
    I am creating a class diagram for what I thought was a fairly simple problem. However, when I get to the bottom of the hierarchy, all of the classes only contain one field and it is the same one. This to me looks very wrong, but this field does not belong in any of the parent classes. I was wondering if there are any suggested design patterns in a situation like this? A simplified version of the class diagram can be found below. Note, fields named differently cannot belong to any other class +------------------+ | ObjectA | |------------------| | String one | | String two | | | +---------+--------+ | +---------------+----------------+ | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAA | | ObjectAB | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String three | | String four | | | | | +--------+--------+ +--------+--------+ | | | | +--------|--------+ +--------|--------+ | ObjectAAA | | ObjectABA | |-----------------| |-----------------| | String five | | String five | | | | | +-----------------+ +-----------------+ ASCII tables drawn using http://www.asciiflow.com/

    Read the article

  • Liskov substitution and abstract classes / strategy pattern

    - by Kolyunya
    I'm trying to follow LSP in practical programming. And I wonder if different constructors of subclasses violate it. It would be great to hear an explanation instead of just yes/no. Thanks much! P.S. If the answer is no, how do I make different strategies with different input without violating LSP? class IStrategy { public: virtual void use() = 0; }; class FooStrategy : public IStrategy { public: FooStrategy(A a, B b) { c = /* some operations with a, b */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << c; } private: C c; }; class BarStrategy : public IStrategy { public: BarStrategy(D d, E e) { f = /* some operations with d, e */ } virtual void use() { std::cout << f; } private: F f; };

    Read the article

  • Help migrating from VB style programming to OO programming [closed]

    - by Agent47DarkSoul
    Being a hobbyist Java developer, I quickly took on with OO programming and understood its advantages over procedural code from C, that I did in college. But I couldn't grasp VB event based code (weird, right?). Bottom-line is OOP came natural to me. Curently I work in a small development firm developing C# applications. My peers here are a bit attached to VB style programming. Most of the C# code written is VB6 event handling code in C#'s skin. I tried explaining to them OOP with its advantages but it wasn't clear to them, maybe because I have never been much of a VB programmer. So can anybody provide any resources: books, web articles on how to migrate from VB style to OO style programming ?

    Read the article

  • Using dot To Access Object Attribute and Proper abstraction

    - by cobie
    I have been programming in python and java for quite a number of years and one thing i find myself doing is using the setters and getters from java in python but a number of blogs seem to think using the dot notation for access is the pythonic way. What I would like to know is if using dot to access methods does not violate abstraction principle. If for example I implement an attribute as a single object and use dot notation to access, if I wanted to change the code later so that the attribute is represented by a list of objects, that would require quite some heavy lifting which violates abstraction principle.

    Read the article

  • Child object free movement on Parent object

    - by The415
    Just to be straightforward, I am completely new to many aspects of coding and am searching for different specs and guidelines to aid me on my journey to crafting a wonderful game in Epic Games' Unreal Engine 4. Okay, I know upon viewing this, some may have little to no clue what I mean, so I'll put it like this to explain what I mean : Imagine a third person game with a simple model of a character. Now, say I have an object as a torso of a character in a game. Now Say I have an object as a head of the character. How could I keep the head as a child of the torso, but at the same time, allow it to move with the camera angle.

    Read the article

  • Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

    - by HichemSeeSharp
    Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

    Read the article

  • would a composite design pattern be useful for group membership?

    - by changokun
    I'm trying to think about the best way to handle group memberships on a website. People sign up and select checkboxes in a list of interests. Every week we send out interest-themed emails to those members that indicated that interest. however i store the information in the database, while i am working with the lists and generating lists of email addresses or manipulating group memberships, the composite design pattern looked interesting. it would be easy to populate the group, then do some aggregating functions that say... generate the list of email addresses based on the interests. but i'm not sure i'm seeing any other advantages. i do need something scalable, and flexible. thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Liskov substitution principle with abstract parent class

    - by Songo
    Does Liskov substitution principle apply to inheritance hierarchies where the parent is an abstract class the same way if the parent is a concrete class? The Wikipedia page list several conditions that have to be met before a hierarchy is deemed to be correct. However, I have read in a blog post that one way to make things easier to conform to LSP is to use abstract parent instead of a concrete class. How does the choice of the parent type (abstract vs concrete) impacts the LSP? Is it better to have an abstract base class whenever possible?

    Read the article

  • Handling array passed to object at creation

    - by cecilli0n
    When creating my object I pass it an array of a row from my database. (everything in the array we will need, disregarding unnecessary elements at sql query level) When I need to access certain array elements from within my class, I do so like $this->row['element'] However, As I continue development, I sometimes forget what exactly is in this passed array.(this itself doesn't seem good) I am wondering if their is a professional approach to dealing with this, Or am I the only one who has these "I wonder whats in the array" thoughts. One approach to tackling this could be that when we originally pass the array, in the constructor, we assign each element of the array to its own variable, but is this considered professional practice? Additionally by doing this, we could make those variables constants, in a attempt at immutability. Overall I am trying to adhere to good software craftsmanship. Regards.

    Read the article

  • "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

    - by Simon
    Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

    Read the article

  • Interfaces on an abstract class

    - by insta
    My coworker and I have different opinions on the relationship between base classes and interfaces. I'm of the belief that a class should not implement an interface unless that class can be used when an implementation of the interface is required. In other words, I like to see code like this: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker, IFooWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } The DbWorker is what gets the IFooWorker interface, because it is an instantiatable implementation of the interface. It completely fulfills the contract. My coworker prefers the nearly identical: interface IFooWorker { void Work(); } abstract class BaseWorker : IFooWorker { ... base class behaviors ... public abstract void Work() { } protected string CleanData(string data) { ... } } class DbWorker : BaseWorker { public void Work() { Repository.AddCleanData(base.CleanData(UI.GetDirtyData())); } } Where the base class gets the interface, and by virtue of this all inheritors of the base class are of that interface as well. This bugs me but I can't come up with concrete reasons why, outside of "the base class cannot stand on its own as an implementation of the interface". What are the pros & cons of his method vs. mine, and why should one be used over another?

    Read the article

  • How do I decide to which class a method should belong

    - by Eleeist
    I have TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class. I have no problem with deciding into which class methods such as addPostToDatabase() or getAllPostsFromDatabase() should go. But what about getAllPostsFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) or getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic)? Should the parameter be the deciding factor? So when the method takes TopicEntity as parameter it should belong to TopicBusiness.class? I am quite puzzled by this. EDIT: Some more info as requested. TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class are classes holding all the business logic of the application concerning topics and posts respectively - that is fetching the data from database and/or performing some operations on them. TopicEntity is data (in this case representing single topic) fetched from database. getAllPostFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) gets all posts from database that belong to particular topic, while getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic) performs database query and returns the number of posts that topic passed as parameter consists of.

    Read the article

  • Law of Demeter in MVC regarding Controller-View communication

    - by Antonio MG
    The scenario: Having a Controller that controls a view composed of complex subviews. Each one of those subviews is a separated class in a separate file. For example, one of those subviews is called ButtonsView, and has a bunch of buttons. The Controller has to access those buttons. Would accessing those buttons like this: controllerMainView.buttonsView.firstButton.state(); be a violation of the LOD? On one hand, it could be yes because the controller is accessing the inner hierarchy of the view. On the other, a Controller should be aware of what happens inside the view and how is composed. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Using Bullet physics engine to find the moment of object contact before penetration

    - by MooMoo
    I would like to use Bullet Physics engine to simulate the objects in 3D world. One of the objects in the world will move using the position from 3D mouse control. I will call it "Mouse Object" and any object in the world as "Object A" I define the time before "mouse object" and "Object A" collide as t-1 The time "mouse object" penetrate "Object A" as t Now there is a problem about rendering the scene because when I move the mouse very fast, "Mouse object" will reside in "Object A" before "Object A" start to move. I would like the "Mouse Object" to stop right away attach to the "Object A". Also If the "Object A" move, the "Mouse object" should move following (attach) the "Object A" without stop at the first collision take place. This is what i did I find the position of the "Mouse Object" at time t-1 and time t. I will name it as pos(t-1) and pos(t) The contact time will be sometime between t-1 to t, which the time of contact I name it as t_contact, therefore the contact position (without penetration) between "Mouse object" and "Object A" will be pos(t_contact) then I create multiple "Mouse object"s using this equation pos[n] = pos(t-1) * C * ( pos(t) - pos(t-1) ) where 0 <= C <= 1 if I choose C = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,0.4..... 1.0, I will get pos[n] for 10 values Then I test collision for all of these 10 "Mouse Objects" and choose the one that seperate between "no collision" and "collision". I feel this method is super non-efficient. I am not sure the way other people find the time-of-contact or the position-of-contact when "Object A" can move.

    Read the article

  • Why am I seeing so many instantiable classes without state?

    - by futlib
    I'm seeing a lot of instantiable classes in the C++ and Java world that don't have any state. I really can't figure out why people do that, they could just use a namespace with free functions in C++, or a class with a private constructor and only static methods in Java. The only benefit I can think of is that you don't have to change most of your code if you later decide that you want a different implementation in certain situations. But isn't that a case of premature design? It could be turned into a class later, when/if it becomes appropriate. Am I getting this wrong? Is it not OOP if I don't put everything into objects (i.e. instantiated classes)? Then why are there so many utility namespaces and classes in the standard libraries of C++ and Java? Update: I've certainly seen a lot examples of this in my previous jobs, but I'm struggling to find open source examples, so maybe it's not that common after all. Still, I'm wondering why people do it, and how common it is.

    Read the article

  • How to decide to which class does a method belong

    - by Eleeist
    I have TopicBusiness.class and PostBusiness.class. I have no problem with deciding into which class methods such as addPostToDatabase() or getAllPostsFromDatabase() should go. But what about getAllPostsFromTopic(TopicEntity topic) or getNumberOfPostsInTopic(TopicEntity topic)? Should the parameter be the deciding factor? So when the method takes TopicEntity as parameter it should belong to TopicBusiness.class? I am quite puzzled by this.

    Read the article

  • is it valid that a state machine can have more than one possible state for some transition?

    - by shankbond
    I have a requirement for a workflow which I am trying to model as a state machine, I see that there is more than one outcome of a given transition(or activity). Is it valid for a state machine to have more than one possible states, but only one state will be true at a given time? Note: This is my first attempt to model a state machine. Eg. might be: s1-t1-s2 s1-t1-s3 s1-t1-s4 where s1, s2, s3, s4 are states and t1 is transition/activity. A fictitious real world example might be: For a human, there can be two states: hungry, not hungry A basket can have only one item from: apple, orange. So, to model it we will have: hungry-pick from basket-apple found hungry-pick from basket-orange found apple found-eat-not hungry orange found-take juice out of it and then drink- not hungry

    Read the article

  • What is the value in hiding the details through abstractions? Isn't there value in transparency?

    - by user606723
    Background I am not a big fan of abstraction. I will admit that one can benefit from adaptability, portability and re-usability of interfaces etc. There is real benefit there, and I don't wish to question that, so let's ignore it. There is the other major "benefit" of abstraction, which is to hide implementation logic and details from users of this abstraction. The argument is that you don't need to know the details, and that one should concentrate on their own logic at this point. Makes sense in theory. However, whenever I've been maintaining large enterprise applications, I always need to know more details. It becomes a huge hassle digging deeper and deeper into the abstraction at every turn just to find out exactly what something does; i.e. having to do "open declaration" about 12 times before finding the stored procedure used. This 'hide the details' mentality seems to just get in the way. I'm always wishing for more transparent interfaces and less abstraction. I can read high level source code and know what it does, but I'll never know how it does it, when how it does it, is what I really need to know. What's going on here? Has every system I've ever worked on just been badly designed (from this perspective at least)? My philosophy When I develop software, I feel like I try to follow a philosophy I feel is closely related to the ArchLinux philosophy: Arch Linux retains the inherent complexities of a GNU/Linux system, while keeping them well organized and transparent. Arch Linux developers and users believe that trying to hide the complexities of a system actually results in an even more complex system, and is therefore to be avoided. And therefore, I never try to hide complexity of my software behind abstraction layers. I try to abuse abstraction, not become a slave to it. Question at heart Is there real value in hiding the details? Aren't we sacrificing transparency? Isn't this transparency valuable?

    Read the article

  • Object oriented EDI handling in PHP

    - by Robert van der Linde
    I'm currently starting a new sub project where I will: Retrieve the order information from our mainframe Save the order information to our web-apps' database Send the order as EDI (either D01b or D93a) Receive the order response, despatch advice and invoice messages Do all kinds of fun things with the resulting datasets. However I am struggling with my initial class designs. The order information will be retrieved from the mainframe which will result in a "AOrder" class, this isn't a problem, I am not sure about how to mold this local object into an EDI string. Should I create EDIOrder/EDIOrderResponse/etc classes with matching decorators (EDIOrderD01BDecorator, EDIOrderD93ADecorator)? Do I need builder objects or can I do: // $myOrder is instance of AOrder $myOrder->toEDIOrder(); $decorator = new EDIOrderD01BDecorator($myOrder); $edi = $decorator->getEDIString(); And it'll have to work the other way around as well. Is the following code a good way of handling this problem or should I go about this differently? $ediString = $myEDIMessageBroker->fetch(); $ediOrderResponse = EDIOrderResponse::fromString($ediString); I'm just not so sure about how I should go about designing the classes and interactions between them. Thanks for reading and helping.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >