Search Results

Search found 25877 results on 1036 pages for 'information driven'.

Page 51/1036 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • DDD and Client/Server apps

    - by Christophe Herreman
    I was wondering if any of you had successfully implemented DDD in a Client/Server app and would like to share some experiences. We are currently working on a smart client in Flex and a backend in Java. On the server we have a service layer exposed to the client that offers CRUD operations amongst some other service methods. I understand that in DDD these services should be repositories and services should be used to handle use cases that do not fit inside a repository. Right now, we mimic these services on the client behind an interface and inject implementations (Webservices, RMI, etc) via an IoC container. So some questions arise: should the server expose repositories to the client or do we need to have some sort of a facade (that is able to handle security for instance) should the client implement repositories (and DDD in general?) knowing that in the client, most of the logic is view related and real business logic lives on the server. All communication with the server happens asynchronously and we have a single threaded programming model on the client. how about mapping client to server objects and vice versa? We tried DTO's but reverted back to exposing the state of our objects and mapping directly to them. I know this is considered bad practice, but it saves us an incredible amount of time) In general I think a new generation of applications is coming with the growth of Flex, Silverlight, JavaFX and I'm curious how DDD fits into this.

    Read the article

  • Mocking with Boost::Test

    - by Billy ONeal
    Hello everyone :) I'm using the Boost::Test library for unit testing, and I've in general been hacking up my own mocking solutions that look something like this: //In header for clients struct RealFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return FindFirstFile(lpFileName, lpFindFileData); }; }; template <typename FirstFile_T = RealFindFirstFile> class DirectoryIterator { //.. Implementation } //In unit tests (cpp) #define THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING 42 struct FakeFindFirstFile { static HANDLE FindFirst(LPCWSTR lpFileName, LPWIN32_FIND_DATAW lpFindFileData) { return THE_ANSWER_TO_LIFE_THE_UNIVERSE_AND_EVERYTHING; }; }; BOOST_AUTO_TEST_CASE( MyTest ) { DirectoryIterator<FakeFindFirstFile> LookMaImMocked; //Test } I've grown frustrated with this because it requires that I implement almost everything as a template, and it is a lot of boilerplate code to achieve what I'm looking for. Is there a good method of mocking up code using Boost::Test over my Ad-hoc method? I've seen several people recommend Google Mock, but it requires a lot of ugly hacks if your functions are not virtual, which I would like to avoid. Oh: One last thing. I don't need assertions that a particular piece of code was called. I simply need to be able to inject data that would normally be returned by Windows API functions.

    Read the article

  • Proper reconstitution of Aggregate objects in the Repository?

    - by Jebb
    Assuming that no ORM (e.g. Doctrine) is used inside the Repository, my question is what is the proper way of instantiating the Aggregate objects? Is it instantiating the child objects directly inside the Repository and just assign it to the Aggregate Root through its setters or the Aggregate Root is responsible of constructing its child entities/objects? Example 1: class UserRepository { // Create user domain entity. $user = new User(); $user->setName('Juan'); // Create child object orders entity. $orders = new Orders($orders); $user->setOrders($orders); } Example 2: class UserRepository { // Create user domain entity. $user = new User(); $user->setName('Juan'); // Get orders. $orders = $ordersDao->findByUser(1); $user->setOrders($orders); } whereas in example 2, instantiation of orders are taken care inside the user entity.

    Read the article

  • UnitOfWork & StrcutureMap & Desktop Application

    - by Afshin Gh
    When developing Web App and using StrcutureMap i normally use HybridHttpOrThreadLocalScoped for my UnitOfWork Part. (unit of work starts up per web request and ...) What about a desktop app(windows service, console, ...)? There is no session and request in a desktop app. How should i manage UoW in this situation? any good reference or article? I don't want to make it singleton. What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Testing system where App-level and Request-level IoC containers exist

    - by Bobby
    My team is in the process of developing a system where we're using Unity as our IoC container; and to provide NHibernate ISessions (Units of work) over each HTTP Request, we're using Unity's ChildContainer feature to create a child container for each request, and sticking the ISession in there. We arrived at this approach after trying others (including defining per-request lifetimes in the container, but there are issues there) and are now trying to decide on a unit testing strategy. Right now, the application-level container itself is living in the HttpApplication, and the Request container lives in the HttpContext.Current. Obviously, neither exist during testing. The pain increases when we decided to use Service Location from our Domain layer, to "lazily" resolve dependencies from the container. So now we have more components wanting to talk to the container. We are also using MSTest, which presents some concurrency dilemmas during testing as well. So we're wondering, what do the bright folks out there in the SO community do to tackle this predicament? How does one setup an application that, during "real" runtime, relies on HTTP objects to hold the containers, but during test has the flexibility to build-up and tear-down the containers consistently, and have the ServiceLocation bits get to those precise containers. I hope the question is clear, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Recommended Model Based Testing Tools

    - by ModelTester
    Does anyone have any suggestions on what Model Based Testing Tools to use? Is Spec Explorer/SPEC# worth it's weight in tester training? What I have traditionally done is create a Visio Model where I call out the states and associated variables, outputs and expected results from each state. Then in a completely disconnected way, I data drive my test scripts with those variables based on that model. But, they are not connected. I want a way to create a model, associate the variables in a business friendly way, that will then build the data parameters for the scripts. I can't be the first person to need this. Is there a tool out there that will do basically that? Short of developing it myself.

    Read the article

  • Rhapsody TestConductor Experiences

    - by vaiomike
    I was wondering whether anybody out there is actively using Rhapsody TestConductor? Or has tried it for a while, but then decided to turn it down for a particular reason? If so, what are your experiences, in which field do you apply it, what are the shortcomings, or why did you turn it down? At the moment we're considering TestConductor as our tool of choice for testing as it's already integrated into Rhapsody, and would like to find out how applicable it is to our project (btw, we're using Rhapsody 7.4 in C). P.S: Recommendations on good books about Model Based Testing are also appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Domain Validation in a CQRS architecture

    - by Jupaol
    Basically I want to know if there is a better way to validate my domain entities. This is how I am planning to do it but I would like your opinion The first approach I considered was: class Customer : EntityBase<Customer> { public void ChangeEmail(string email) { if(string.IsNullOrWhitespace(email)) throw new DomainException(“...”); if(!email.IsEmail()) throw new DomainException(); if(email.Contains(“@mailinator.com”)) throw new DomainException(); } } I actually do not like this validation because even when I am encapsulating the validation logic in the correct entity, this is violating the Open/Close principle (Open for extension but Close for modification) and I have found that violating this principle, code maintenance becomes a real pain when the application grows up in complexity. Why? Because domain rules change more often than we would like to admit, and if the rules are hidden and embedded in an entity like this, they are hard to test, hard to read, hard to maintain but the real reason why I do not like this approach is: if the validation rules change, I have to come and edit my domain entity. This has been a really simple example but in RL the validation could be more complex So following the philosophy of Udi Dahan, making roles explicit, and the recommendation from Eric Evans in the blue book, the next try was to implement the specification pattern, something like this class EmailDomainIsAllowedSpecification : IDomainSpecification<Customer> { private INotAllowedEmailDomainsResolver invalidEmailDomainsResolver; public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Customer customer) { return !this.invalidEmailDomainsResolver.GetInvalidEmailDomains().Contains(customer.Email); } } But then I realize that in order to follow this approach I had to mutate my entities first in order to pass the value being valdiated, in this case the email, but mutating them would cause my domain events being fired which I wouldn’t like to happen until the new email is valid So after considering these approaches, I came out with this one, since I am going to implement a CQRS architecture: class EmailDomainIsAllowedValidator : IDomainInvariantValidator<Customer, ChangeEmailCommand> { public void IsValid(Customer entity, ChangeEmailCommand command) { if(!command.Email.HasValidDomain()) throw new DomainException(“...”); } } Well that’s the main idea, the entity is passed to the validator in case we need some value from the entity to perform the validation, the command contains the data coming from the user and since the validators are considered injectable objects they could have external dependencies injected if the validation requires it. Now the dilemma, I am happy with a design like this because my validation is encapsulated in individual objects which brings many advantages: easy unit test, easy to maintain, domain invariants are explicitly expressed using the Ubiquitous Language, easy to extend, validation logic is centralized and validators can be used together to enforce complex domain rules. And even when I know I am placing the validation of my entities outside of them (You could argue a code smell - Anemic Domain) but I think the trade-off is acceptable But there is one thing that I have not figured out how to implement it in a clean way. How should I use this components... Since they will be injected, they won’t fit naturally inside my domain entities, so basically I see two options: Pass the validators to each method of my entity Validate my objects externally (from the command handler) I am not happy with the option 1 so I would explain how I would do it with the option 2 class ChangeEmailCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<ChangeEmailCommand> { public void Execute(ChangeEmailCommand command) { private IEnumerable<IDomainInvariantValidator> validators; // here I would get the validators required for this command injected, and in here I would validate them, something like this using (var t = this.unitOfWork.BeginTransaction()) { var customer = this.unitOfWork.Get<Customer>(command.CustomerId); this.validators.ForEach(x =. x.IsValid(customer, command)); // here I know the command is valid // the call to ChangeEmail will fire domain events as needed customer.ChangeEmail(command.Email); t.Commit(); } } } Well this is it. Can you give me your thoughts about this or share your experiences with Domain entities validation EDIT I think it is not clear from my question, but the real problem is: Hiding the domain rules has serious implications in the future maintainability of the application, and also domain rules change often during the life-cycle of the app. Hence implementing them with this in mind would let us extend them easily. Now imagine in the future a rules engine is implemented, if the rules are encapsulated outside of the domain entities, this change would be easier to implement

    Read the article

  • How to fluent-map this (using fluent nhibernate)?

    - by vikasde
    I have two tables in my database "Styles" and "BannedStyles". They have a reference via the ItemNo. Now styles can be banned per store. So if style x is banned at store Y then its very possible that its not banned at store Z or vice verse. What is the best way now to map this to a single entity? Should I be mapping this to a single entity? My Style entity looks like this: public class Style { public virtual int ItemNo { get; set;} public virtual string SKU { get; set; } public virtual string StyleName { get; set; } public virtual string Description { get; set; } public virtual Store Store { get; set; } public virtual bool IsEntireStyleBanned { get; set; } }

    Read the article

  • How to build a web site which gives a sub-domain dynamically to every registered user?

    - by coderex
    Suppose i have a site and i wish to give a sub-domain for each registered users. like my site http://site.com/ and the test-user is a user registered on my site and site want to make sub-domain for that user. Like http://test-user.site.com Like http://test-user1.site.com for test-user1. Hop you understood the requirement. How can i create a sub-domain using my sites back-end. or dynamically while register

    Read the article

  • DDD and MVC: Difference between 'Model' and 'Entity'

    - by Nathan Loding
    I'm seriously confused about the concept of the 'Model' in MVC. Most frameworks that exist today put the Model between the Controller and the database, and the Model almost acts like a database abstraction layer. The concept of 'Fat Model Skinny Controller' is lost as the Controller starts doing more and more logic. In DDD, there is also the concept of a Domain Entity, which has a unique identity to it. As I understand it, a user is a good example of an Entity (unique userid, for instance). The Entity has a life-cycle -- it's values can change throughout the course of the action -- and then it's saved or discarded. The Entity I describe above is what I thought Model was supposed to be in MVC? How off-base am I? To clutter things more, you throw in other patterns, such as the Repository pattern (maybe putting a Service in there). It's pretty clear how the Repository would interact with an Entity -- how does it with a Model? Controllers can have multiple Models, which makes it seem like a Model is less a "database table" than it is a unique Entity. So, in very rough terms, which is better? No "Model" really ... class MyController { public function index() { $repo = new PostRepository(); $posts = $repo->findAllByDateRange('within 30 days'); foreach($posts as $post) { echo $post->Author; } } } Or this, which has a Model as the DAO? class MyController { public function index() { $model = new PostModel(); // maybe this returns a PostRepository? $posts = $model->findAllByDateRange('within 30 days'); while($posts->getNext()) { echo $posts->Post->Author; } } } Both those examples didn't even do what I was describing above. I'm clearly lost. Any input?

    Read the article

  • How To Implement The Query Side Of CQS in DDD?

    - by Laz
    I have implemented the command side of DDD using the domain model and repositories, but how do I implement the query side? Do I create an entirely new domain model for the UI, and where is this kept in the project structure...in the domain layer, the UI layer, etc? Also, what do I use as my querying mechanism, do I create new repositories specifically for the UI domain objects, something other than repositories, or something else?

    Read the article

  • How do I call exec in psake to an executable with a variable path?

    - by Josh Kodroff
    I can't seem to call this executable correctly in my psake deploy script. If I do this: exec { "$ArchiverOutputDir\NServiceBus.Host.exe /install" } It simply outputs this (and is clearly not calling the executable - just outputting the value of that expression): c:\ReloDotNet2_ServiceEndpoints\Archiver\NServiceBus.Host.exe /install But if I do this: exec { c:\ReloDotNet2_ServiceEndpoints\Archiver\NServiceBus.Host.exe /install } I get the expected output from the executable. How do I correctly call an executable with a variable in the path to the executable in psake? If this is actually a PowerShell issue, please feel free to correct the question to reflect that insight. I

    Read the article

  • Saving complex aggregates using Repository Pattern

    - by Kevin Lawrence
    We have a complex aggregate (sensitive names obfuscated for confidentiality reasons). The root, R, is composed of collections of Ms, As, Cs, Ss. Ms have collections of other low-level details. etc etc R really is an aggregate (no fair suggesting we split it!) We use lazy loading to retrieve the details. No problem there. But we are struggling a little with how to save such a complex aggregate. From the caller's point of view: r = repository.find(id); r.Ps.add(factory.createP()); r.Cs[5].updateX(123); r.Ms.removeAt(5); repository.save(r); Our competing solutions are: Dirty flags Each entity in the aggregate in the aggregate has a dirty flag. The save() method in the repository walks the tree looking for dirty objects and saves them. Deletes and adds are a little trickier - especially with lazy-loading - but doable. Event listener accumulates changes. Repository subscribes a listener to changes and accumulates events. When save is called, the repository grabs all the change events and writes them to the DB. Give up on repository pattern. Implement overloaded save methods to save the parts of the aggregate separately. The original example would become: r = repository.find(id); r.Ps.add(factory.createP()); r.Cs[5].updateX(123); r.Ms.removeAt(5); repository.save(r.Ps); repository.save(r.Cs); repository.save(r.Ms); (or worse) Advice please! What should we do?

    Read the article

  • If you are forced to use an Anemic domain model, where do you put your business logic and calculated

    - by Jess
    Our current O/RM tool does not really allow for rich domain models, so we are forced to utilize anemic (DTO) entities everywhere. This has worked fine, but I continue to struggle with where to put basic object-based business logic and calculated fields. Current layers: Presentation Service Repository Data/Entity Our repository layer has most of the basic fetch/validate/save logic, although the service layer does a lot of the more complex validation & saving (since save operations also do logging, checking of permissions, etc). The problem is where to put code like this: Decimal CalculateTotal(LineItemEntity li) { return li.Quantity * li.Price; } or Decimal CalculateOrderTotal(OrderEntity order) { Decimal orderTotal = 0; foreach (LineItemEntity li in order.LineItems) { orderTotal += CalculateTotal(li); } return orderTotal; } Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • In a DDD approach, is this example modelled correctly?

    - by Tag
    Just created an acc on SO to ask this :) Assuming this simplified example: building a web application to manage projects... The application has the following requirements/rules. 1) Users should be able to create projects inserting the project name. 2) Project names cannot be empty. 3) Two projects can't have the same name. I'm using a 4-layered architecture (User Interface, Application, Domain, Infrastructure). On my Application Layer i have the following ProjectService.cs class: public class ProjectService { private IProjectRepository ProjectRepo { get; set; } public ProjectService(IProjectRepository projectRepo) { ProjectRepo = projectRepo; } public void CreateNewProject(string name) { IList<Project> projects = ProjectRepo.GetProjectsByName(name); if (projects.Count > 0) throw new Exception("Project name already exists."); Project project = new Project(name); ProjectRepo.InsertProject(project); } } On my Domain Layer, i have the Project.cs class and the IProjectRepository.cs interface: public class Project { public int ProjectID { get; private set; } public string Name { get; private set; } public Project(string name) { ValidateName(name); Name = name; } private void ValidateName(string name) { if (name == null || name.Equals(string.Empty)) { throw new Exception("Project name cannot be empty or null."); } } } public interface IProjectRepository { void InsertProject(Project project); IList<Project> GetProjectsByName(string projectName); } On my Infrastructure layer, i have the implementation of IProjectRepository which does the actual querying (the code is irrelevant). I don't like two things about this design: 1) I've read that the repository interfaces should be a part of the domain but the implementations should not. That makes no sense to me since i think the domain shouldn't call the repository methods (persistence ignorance), that should be a responsability of the services in the application layer. (Something tells me i'm terribly wrong.) 2) The process of creating a new project involves two validations (not null and not duplicate). In my design above, those two validations are scattered in two different places making it harder (imho) to see whats going on. So, my question is, from a DDD perspective, is this modelled correctly or would you do it in a different way?

    Read the article

  • Getting started with nbehave

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, I am looking at using BDD, however, when evaluating the stories/conditions I write (using nBehave), how do I check if the story passes? Do I write another library with test methods? For example, if I want to test a site for having a link called "About", do I write a method which can check this and then another method in another class library which can call the method to check the link via lambda syntax and add the relevant test and bdd attributes? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is It Incorrect to Make Domain Objects Aware of The Data Access Layer?

    - by Noah Goodrich
    I am currently working on rewriting an application to use Data Mappers that completely abstract the database from the Domain layer. However, I am now wondering which is the better approach to handling relationships between Domain objects: Call the necessary find() method from the related data mapper directly within the domain object Write the relationship logic into the native data mapper (which is what the examples tend to do in PoEAA) and then call the native data mapper function within the domain object. Either it seems to me that in order to preserve the 'Fat Model, Skinny Controller' mantra, the domain objects have to be aware of the data mappers (whether it be their own or that they have access to the other mappers in the system). Additionally it seems that Option 2 unnecessarily complicates the data access layer as it creates table access logic across multiple data mappers instead of confining it to a single data mapper. So, is it incorrect to make the domain objects aware of the related data mappers and to call data mapper functions directly from the domain objects? Update: These are the only two solutions that I can envision to handle the issue of relations between domain objects. Any example showing a better method would be welcome.

    Read the article

  • Creating Domain Model

    - by Zai
    Hi, I have created a use case of a small application and now I have to create a Domain Model of that use cases of the application and which functions will be implemented in this application. I have no previous experience in Domain Modeling and UML, please suggest me steps to create the domain model or any suggestions, Do I have to have a very solid understanding of Object oriented concepts for creating domain model? The application is simple and creates online poll/voting system and have functions like Register Account, Confirmation Email of account, Membership, Create Poll, Send Poll etc

    Read the article

  • Value objects in DDD - Why immutable?

    - by Hobbes
    I don't get why value objects in DDD should be immutable, nor do I see how this is easily done. (I'm focusing on C# and Entity Framework, if that matters.) For example, let's consider the classic Address value object. If you needed to change "123 Main St" to "123 Main Street", why should I need to construct a whole new object instead of saying myCustomer.Address.AddressLine1 = "123 Main Street"? (Even if Entity Framework supported structs, this would still be a problem, wouldn't it?) I understand (I think) the idea that value objects don't have an identity and are part of a domain object, but can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing? EDIT: My final question here really should be "Can someone explain why immutability is a Good Thing as applied to Value Objects?" Sorry for the confusion! EDIT: To clairfy, I am not asking about CLR value types (vs reference types). I'm asking about the higher level DDD concept of Value Objects. For example, here is a hack-ish way to implement immutable value types for Entity Framework: http://rogeralsing.com/2009/05/21/entity-framework-4-immutable-value-objects. Basically, he just makes all setters private. Why go through the trouble of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Deleting a resource in a Cucumber (Capybara) step doesn't work

    - by Josiah Kiehl
    Here is my Scenario: Scenario: Delete a match Given pojo is logged in And there is a match with the following: | game_id | 1 | | name | Game del Pojo | | date_and_time | 2010-02-23 17:52:00 | | players | 2 | | teams | 2 | | comment | This is an awesome comment | | user_id | 1 | And I am on the show match 1 page And show me the page When I follow "Delete" And I follow "Yes, delete it" Then there should not be a match with the following: | game_id | 1 | | name | Game del Pojo | | date_and_time | 2010-02-23 17:52:00 | | players | 2 | | teams | 2 | | comment | This is an awesome comment | | user_id | 1 | If I walk through these steps manually, they work. When I click the confirmation: Yes, delete it, then the match is deleted. Cucumber, however, fails to delete the record and the last step fails. And I follow "Yes, delete it" # features/step_definitions/web_steps.rb:32 Then there should not be a match with the following: # features/step_definitions/match_steps.rb:8 | game_id | 1 | | name | Game del Pojo | | date_and_time | 2010-02-23 17:52:00 | | players | 2 | | teams | 2 | | comment | This is an awesome comment | | user_id | 1 | <nil> expected but was <#<Match id: 1, name: "Game del Pojo", date_and_time: "2010-02-23 17:52:00", teams: 2, created_at: "2010-03-02 23:06:33", updated_at: "2010-03-02 23:06:33", comment: "This is an awesome comment", players: 2, game_id: 1, user_id: 1>>. (Test::Unit::AssertionFailedError) /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/assertions.rb:48:in `assert_block' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/assertions.rb:495:in `_wrap_assertion' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/assertions.rb:46:in `assert_block' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/assertions.rb:83:in `assert_equal' /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/test/unit/assertions.rb:172:in `assert_nil' ./features/step_definitions/match_steps.rb:22:in `/^there should (not)? be a match with the following:$/' features/matches.feature:124:in `Then there should not be a match with the following:' Any clue how to debug this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • Truly declarative language?

    - by gjvdkamp
    Hi all, Does anyone know of a truly declarative language? The behaviour I'm looking for is kind of what Excel does, where I can define variables and formulas, and have the formula's result change when the input changes (without having set the answer again myself) The behaviour I'm looking for is best shown with this pseudo code: X = 10 // define and assign two variables Y = 20; Z = X + Y // declare a formula that uses these two variables X = 50 // change one of the input variables ?Z // asking for Z should now give 70 (50 + 20) I've tried this in a lot of languages like F#, python, matlab etc, but every time i try this they come up with 30 instead of 70. Wich is correct from an imperative point of view, but i'm looking for a more declerative behaviour if you know what i mean. And this is just a very simple calculation. When things get more difficult it should handle stuff like recursion and memoization automagically. The code below would obviously work in C# but it's just so much code for the job, i'm looking for something a bit more to the point without all that 'technical noise' class BlaBla{ public int X {get;set;} // this used to be even worse before 3.0 public int Y {get;set;} public int Z {get{return X + Y;}} } static void main(){ BlaBla bla = new BlaBla(); bla.X = 10; bla.Y = 20; // can't define anything here bla.X = 50; // bit pointless here but I'll do it anyway. Console.Writeline(bla.Z);// 70, hurray! } This just seems like so much code, curly braces and semicolons that add nothing. Is there a language/ application (apart from Exel) that does this? Maybe I'm no doing it right in the mentioned langauges, or I've completely missed an app that does just this. I prototyped a language/ application that does this (along with some other stuff) and am thinking of productizing it. I just can't believe it's not there yet. Don't want to waste my time. Thanks in advance, Gert-Jan

    Read the article

  • General ORM design question

    - by Calvin
    Suppose you have 2 classes, Person and Rabbit. A person can do a number of things to a rabbit, s/he can either feed it, buy it and become its owner, or give it away. A rabbit can have none or at most 1 owner at a time. And if it is not fed for a while, it may die. Class Person { Void Feed(Rabbit r); Void Buy(Rabbit r); Void Giveaway(Person p, Rabbit r); Rabbit[] rabbits; } Class Rabbit { Bool IsAlive(); Person pwner; } There are a couple of observations from the domain model: Person and Rabbit can have references to each other Any actions on 1 object can also change the state of the other object Even if no explicit actions are invoked, there can still be a change of state in the objects (e.g. Rabbit can be starved to death, and that causes it to be removed from the Person.rabbits array) As DDD is concerned, I think the correct approach is to synchronize all calls that may change the states in the domain model. For instance, if a Person buys a Rabbit, s/he would need to acquire a lock in Person to make a change to the rabbits array AND also another lock in Rabbit to change its owner before releasing the first one. This would prevent a race condition where 2 Persons claim to be the owner of the little Rabbit. The other approach is to let the database to handle all these synchronizations. Who makes the first call wins, but then the DB needs to have some kind of business logics to figure out if it is a valid transaction (e.g. if a Rabbit already has an owner, it cannot change its owner unless the Person gives it away). There are both pros/cons in either approach, and I’d expect the “best” solution would be somewhere in-between. How would you do it in real life? What’s your take and experience? Also, is it a valid concern that there can be another race condition the domain model has committed its change but before it is fully committed in the database? And for the 3rd observation (i.e. state change due to time factor). How will you do it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >