Search Results

Search found 45920 results on 1837 pages for 'java design patterns'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 50/1837 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

  • Which pattern is best for large project

    - by shamim
    I have several years of software development experience, but I am not a keen and adroit programmer, to perform better I need helping hands. Recently I engaged in an ERP project. For this project want a very effective structure, which will be easily maintainable and have no compromise about performance issue. Below structures are now present in my old projects. Entity Layer BusinessLogic Layer. DataLogic Layer UI Layer. Bellow picture describe how they are internally connected. For my new project want to change my project structure, I want to follow below steps: Core Layer(common) BLL DAL Model UI Bellow picture describe how they are internally connected. Though goggling some initial type question’s are obscure to me, they are : For new project want to use Entity framework, is it a good idea? Will it increase my project performance? Will it more maintainable than previous structure? Entity Framework core disadvantages/benefits are? For my project need help to select best structure. Will my new structure be better than the old one?

    Read the article

  • What is the best approach to solve a factory method problem which has to be an instance?

    - by Iago
    I have to add new funcionality in a web service legacy project and I'm thinking what is the best approach for a concrete situation. The web service is simple: It receives a XML file, unmarshalling, generates response's objects, marshalling and finally it sends the response as a XML file. For every XML files received, the web service always responds with the same XML structure. What I have to do is to generate a different XML file according to the XML received. So I have a controller class which has all marshalling/unmarshalling operations, but this controller class has to be an instance. Depending on XML received I need some marshalling methods or others. Trying to make few changes on legacy source, what is the best approach? My first approach was to do a factory method pattern with the controller class, but this class has to be an instance. I want to keep, as far as it goes, this structure: classController.doMarshalling(); I think this one is a bit smelly: if(XMLReceived.isTypeOne()) classController.doMarshallingOne(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeTwo()) classController.doMarshallingTwo(); else if(XMLReceived.isTypeThree()) classController.doMarshallingThree(); else if ... I hope my question is well understood

    Read the article

  • When designing a job queue, what should determine the scope of a job?

    - by Stuart Pegg
    We've got a job queue system that'll cheerfully process any kind of job given to it. We intend to use it to process jobs that each contain 2 tasks: Job (Pass information from one server to another) Fetch task (get the data, slowly) Send task (send the data, comparatively quickly) The difficulty we're having is that we don't know whether to break the tasks into separate jobs, or process the job in one go. Are there any best practices or useful references on this subject? Is there some obvious benefit to a method that we're missing? So far we can see these benefits for each method: Split Job lease length reflects job length: Rather than total of two Finer granularity on recovery: If we lose outgoing connectivity we can tell them all to retry The starting state of the second task is saved to job history: Helps with debugging (although similar logging could be added in single task method) Single Single job to be scheduled: Less processing overhead Data not stale on recovery: If the outgoing downtime is quite long, the pending Send jobs could be outdated

    Read the article

  • Best Method of function parameter validation

    - by Aglystas
    I've been dabbling with the idea of creating my own CMS for the experience and because it would be fun to run my website off my own code base. One of the decisions I keep coming back to is how best to validate incoming parameters for functions. This is mostly in reference to simple data types since object validation would be quite a bit more complex. At first I debated creating a naming convention that would contain information about what the parameters should be, (int, string, bool, etc) then I also figured I could create options to validate against. But then in every function I still need to run some sort of parameter validation that parses the parameter name to determine what the value can be then validate against it, granted this would be handled by passing the list of parameters to function but that still needs to happen and one of my goals is to remove the parameter validation from the function itself so that you can only have the actual function code that accomplishes the intended task without the additional code for validation. Is there any good way of handling this, or is it so low level that typically parameter validation is just done at the start of the function call anyway, so I should stick with doing that.

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for the Builder Pattern where the Builder is implemented via interfaces so certain parameters are required?

    - by Zipper
    So we implemented the builder pattern for most of our domain to help in understandability of what actually being passed to a constructor, and for the normal advantages that a builder gives. The one twist was that we exposed the builder through interfaces so we could chain required functions and unrequired functions to make sure that the correct parameters were passed. I was curious if there was an existing pattern like this. Example below: public class Foo { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; private Foo(Builder builder) { this.someThing = builder.someThing; this.someThing2 = builder.someThing2; this.someThing3 = builder.someThing3; } public static RequiredSomething getBuilder() { return new Builder(); } public interface RequiredSomething { public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value); } public interface RequiredDateTime { public OptionalParamters withDateTime (DateTime value); } public interface OptionalParamters { public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value); public Foo Build ();} public static class Builder implements RequiredSomething, RequiredDateTime, OptionalParamters { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withDateTime (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public Foo build(){return new Foo(this);} } } Example of how it's called: Foo foo = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).build(); Foo foo2 = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).withSomething2(3).build();

    Read the article

  • Should I extract specific functionality into a function and why?

    - by john smith optional
    I have a large method which does 3 tasks, each of them can be extracted into a separate function. If I'll make an additional functions for each of that tasks, will it make my code better or worse and why? Edit: Obviously, it'll make less lines of code in the main function, but there'll be additional function declarations, so my class will have additional methods, which I believe isn't good, because it'll make the class more complex. Edit2: Should I do that before I wrote all the code or should I leave it until everything is done and then extract functions?

    Read the article

  • Can the following Domain Entity contain logic for creating/deleting other entities?

    - by user702769
    a) As far as I understand it, in most cases Domain Model DM doesn't contain code for creating/deleting domain entities, but instead it is the job of layers ( ie service layer or UI layer ) on top of DM to create/delete domain entities? b) Domain entities are modelled after real world entities. Assuming particular real world entity being abstracted does have the functionality of creating/deleting other real world entities, then I assume the domain entity abstracting this real world entity could also contain logic for creating/deleting other entities? class RobotDestroyerCreator { ... void heavyThinking() { ... if(...) unitOfWork.registerDelete(robot); ... if(...) { var robotNew = new Robot(...); unitOfWork.registerNew(robotNew); { ... } } Thank you

    Read the article

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to handle sorting of complex objects?

    - by AedonEtLIRA
    How would one sort a list of objects that have more than one sortable element? Suppose you have a simple object Car and car is a defined as such: class Car { public String make; public String model; public int year; public String color; // ... No methods, just a structure / container } I designed a simple framework that would allow for multiple SortOptions to be provided to a Sorter that would then sort the list. interface ISorter<T> { List<T> sort(List<T> items); void addSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); ISortOption<T>[] getSortOptions(); void setSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); } interface ISortOption<T> { String getLabel(); int compare(T t1, T t2); } Example use class SimpleStringSorter extends MergeSorter<String> { { addSorter(new AlphaSorter()); } private static final class AlphaSorter implements ISortOption<String> { // ... implementation of alpha compare and get label } } The issue with this solution is that it is not easily expandable. If car was to ever receive a new field, say, currentOwner. I would need to add the field, then track down the sorter class file, implement a new sort option class then recompile the application for redistribution. Is there an easier more expandable/practical way to sort data like this?

    Read the article

  • Callbacks: when to return value, and when to modify parameter?

    - by MarkN
    When writing a callback, when is best to have the callback return a value, and when is it best to have the callback modify a parameter? Is there a difference? For example, if we wanted to grab a list of dependencies, when would you do this: function GetDependencies(){ return [{"Dep1" : 1.1}, {"Dept2": 1.2}, {"Dep3" : 1.3}]; } And when would you do this? function RegisterDependencies(register){ register.add("Dep1", 1.1); register.add("Dep2", 1.2); register.add("Dep3", 1.3); }

    Read the article

  • EAV - is it really bad in all scenarios?

    - by Giedrius
    I'm thinking to use EAV for some of the stuff in one of the projects, but all questions about it in stackoverflow end up to answers calling EAV an anti pattern. But I'm wondering, if is it that wrong in all cases? Let's say shop product entity, it has common features, like name, description, image, price, etc., that take part in logic many places and has (semi)unique features, like watch and beach ball would be described by completely different aspects. So I think EAV would fit for storing those (semi)unique features? All this is assuming, that for showing product list, it is enough info in product table (that means no EAV is involved) and just when showing one product/comparing up to 5 products/etc. data saved using EAV is used. I've seen such approach in Magento commerce and it is quite popular, so may be there are cases, when EAV is reasonable?

    Read the article

  • Is OOP becoming easier or harder?

    - by tunmise fasipe
    When the concepts of Object Oriented Programming were introduced to programmers years back it looks interesting and programming was cleaner. OOP was like this Stock stock = new Stock(); stock.addItem(item); stock.removeItem(item); That was easier to understand with self-descriptive name. But now OOP, with pattern like Data Transfer Objects (or Value Objects), Repository, Dependency Injection etc, has become more complex. To achieve the above you may have to create several classes (e.g. abstract, factory, DAO etc) and Implement several interfaces Note: I am not against best practices that makes Collaboration, Testing and Integration easier

    Read the article

  • Updating query results

    - by Francisco Garcia
    Within a DDD and CQRS context, a query result is displayed as table rows. Whenever new rows are inserted or deleted, their positions must be calculated by comparing the previous query result with the most recent one. This is needed to visualize with an animation new or deleted rows. The model of my view contains an array of the displayed query results. But I need a place to compare its contents against the latest query. Right now I consider my model view part of my application layer, but the comparison of two query result sets seems something that must be done within the domain layer. Which component should cache a query result and which one compare them? Are view models (and their cached contents) supposed to be in the application layer?

    Read the article

  • Seperation of drawing and logic in games

    - by BFree
    I'm a developer that's just now starting to mess around with game development. I'm a .Net guy, so I've messed with XNA and am now playing around with Cocos2d for the iPhone. My question really is more general though. Let's say I'm building a simple Pong game. I'd have a Ball class and a Paddle class. Coming from the business world development, my first instinct is to not have any drawing or input handling code in either of these classes. //pseudo code class Ball { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Move(){} } Nothing in the ball class handles input, or deals with drawing. I'd then have another class, my Game class, or my Scene.m (in Cocos2D) which would new up the Ball, and during the game loop, it would manipulate the ball as needed. The thing is though, in many tutorials for both XNA and Cocos2D, I see a pattern like this: //pseudo code class Ball : SomeUpdatableComponent { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Update(){} void Draw(){} void HandleInput(){} } My question is, is this right? Is this the pattern that people use in game development? It somehow goes against everything I'm used to, to have my Ball class do everything. Furthermore, in this second example, where my Ball knows how to move around, how would I handle collision detection with the Paddle? Would the Ball need to have knowledge of the Paddle? In my first example, the Game class would have references to both the Ball and the Paddle, and then ship both of those off to some CollisionDetection manager or something, but how do I deal with the complexity of various components, if each individual component does everything themselves? (I hope I'm making sense.....)

    Read the article

  • How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

    - by Ophir Yoktan
    I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

    Read the article

  • is Java free for mobile development?

    - by exTrace101
    Q1. I would like to know if it's free for a developer (I mean, if I have to pay no royalties to Sun/Oracle) to develop (Android) mobile apps in Java? After reading this snippet about use of Java field, I'm getting the impression that Java is not free for mobile development, is that right? .."General Purpose Desktop Computers and Servers" means computers, including desktop and laptop computers, or servers, used for general computing functions under end user control (such as but not specifically limited to email, general purpose Internet browsing, and office suite productivity tools). The use of Software in systems and solutions that provide dedicated functionality (other than as mentioned above) or designed for use in embedded or function-specific software applications, for example but not limited to: Software embedded in or bundled with industrial control systems, wireless mobile telephones, wireless handheld devices, netbooks, kiosks, TV/STB, Blu-ray Disc devices, telematics and network control switching equipment, printers and storage management systems, and other related systems are excluded from this definition and not licensed under this Agreement... and from http://www.excelsiorjet.com/embedded/ Notice : The Java SE Embedded technology license currently prohibits the use of Java SE in cell phones. Q2. how come these plethora of Android Java developers aren't paying Sun/Oracle a dime?

    Read the article

  • How to refactor to cleaner version of maintaing states of the widget

    - by George
    Backstory I inherited a bunch of code that I'd like to refactor. It is a UI application written in javascript. Current state: We have main application which consist of several UI components. And each component has entry fields, textboxes, menus, etc), like "ticket", "customer information", etc. Based on input, where the application was called from, who is the user, we enable/disable, hide, show, change titles. Unfortunately, the app grew to the point where it is really hard to scale, add new features. Main the driver (application code) calls set/unset functions of the respective components. So a lot of the stuff look like this Main app unit function1() { **call_function2()** component1.setX(true); component1.setY(true); component2.setX(false); } call_function2() { // it may repeat some of the code function1 called } and we have a lot of this in the main union. I am cleaning this mess. What is the best way to maintain the state of widgets? Please let me know if you need me to clarify.

    Read the article

  • Create many similar classes, or just one

    - by soandos
    The goal is to create an application that has objects that can represent some operations (add, subtract, etc). All of those objects will have common functions and members, and thus will either implement an interface or inherit from an abstract class (Which would be better practice, this will be in C# if that matters?). As far as I can see, there are two different ways of organizing all of these classes. I could create an addition class, a subtraction class, etc. This has the upside of being highly modular but the difference between classes is so minimal. I could create one class, and have a member that will say what type of operation is being represented. This means lots of switch statements, and losing some modularity, in addition to being harder to maintain. Which is is better practice? Is there a better way of doing that is not listed above? If it matters, the list of functions that should be supported is long.

    Read the article

  • Where ORMs blur the lines between code and data, how do you decide what logic should be a stored procedure, and what should be coded?

    - by PhonicUK
    Take the following pseudocode: CreateInvoiceAndCalculate(ItemsAndQuantities, DispatchAddress, User); And say CreateInvoice does the following: Create a new entry in an Invoices table belonging to the specified User to be sent to the given DispatchAddress. Create a new entry in an InvoiceItems table for each of the items in ItemsAndQuantities, storing the Item, the Quantity, and the cost of the item as of now (by looking it up from an Items table) Calculate the total amount of the invoice (ex shipping and taxes) and store it in the new Invoice row. At a glace you wouldn't be able to tell if this was a method in my applications code, or a stored procedure in the database that is being exposed as a function by the ORM. And to some extent it doesn't really matter. Now technically none of this is business logic. You're not making any decisions - just performing a calculation and creating records. However some may argue that because you are performing a calculation that affects the business (the total amount to be invoiced) that this isn't something that should be done in a stored procedure and instead should be in code. So for this specific example - why would it be more appropriate to do one or the other? And where do you draw the line? Or does it even particular matter as long as it's sufficiently well documented?

    Read the article

  • Where we should put validation for domain model

    - by adisembiring
    I still looking best practice for domain model validation. Is that good to put the validation in constructor of domain model ? my domain model validation example as follows: public class Order { private readonly List<OrderLine> _lineItems; public virtual Customer Customer { get; private set; } public virtual DateTime OrderDate { get; private set; } public virtual decimal OrderTotal { get; private set; } public Order (Customer customer) { if (customer == null) throw new ArgumentException("Customer name must be defined"); Customer = customer; OrderDate = DateTime.Now; _lineItems = new List<LineItem>(); } public void AddOderLine //.... public IEnumerable<OrderLine> AddOderLine { get {return _lineItems;} } } public class OrderLine { public virtual Order Order { get; set; } public virtual Product Product { get; set; } public virtual int Quantity { get; set; } public virtual decimal UnitPrice { get; set; } public OrderLine(Order order, int quantity, Product product) { if (order == null) throw new ArgumentException("Order name must be defined"); if (quantity <= 0) throw new ArgumentException("Quantity must be greater than zero"); if (product == null) throw new ArgumentException("Product name must be defined"); Order = order; Quantity = quantity; Product = product; } } Thanks for all of your suggestion.

    Read the article

  • How to layer if statements when order of logic is irrelevant?

    - by jimmyjimmy
    Basically I have a series of logic in my website that can lead to 5 total outcomes. Basically two different if tests and then a catch all else statement. For example: if cond1: if mod1: #do things elif mod2: #do things elif cond2: if mod1: #do things elif mod2 #do things else: #do things I was thinking about rewriting it like this: if cond1 and mod1: #do things elif cond1 and mod2: #do things elif cond2 and mod1: #do things elif cond2 and mod2: #do things else: #do things Is there any real difference in these two coding options/a better choice for this kind of logic testing?

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >