Search Results

Search found 11404 results on 457 pages for 'ui patterns'.

Page 51/457 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

• "My stuff" vs. "Your stuff" in UI texts

  - by John Isaacks

  When refering to a users stuff should you use My or Your, for example: My Cart | My Account | My Wishlist Or Your Cart | Your Account | Your Wishlist I found this article that argues for the use of your. It says flikr does this. It also says MySpace and MyYahoo are wrong. I also noticed today that Amazon uses the term Your. However, I have heard they are the masters at testing variations and finding the best one, so what you see on their site might be the best variation, or simply something they are currently testing. I personally like the way my looks better, but thats just my opinion. What do you think? What will hever the better impact on customers? Does it really even matter?

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

  Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

  Read the article

• How to avoid big and clumpsy UITableViewController on iOS?

  - by Johan Karlsson

  I have a problem when implementing the MVC-pattern on iOS. I have searched the Internet but seems not to find any nice solution to this problem. Many UITableViewController implementations seems to be rather big. Most example I have seen lets the UITableViewController implement UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. These implementations are a big reason why UITableViewControlleris getting big. One solution would be to create separate classes that implements UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. Of course these classes would have to have a reference to the UITableViewController. Are there any drawbacks using this solution? In general I think you should delegate the functionality to other "Helper" classes or similar, using the delegate pattern. Are there any well established ways of solving this problem? I do not want the model to contain to much functionality, nor the view. A believe that the logic should really be in the controller class, since this is one of the cornerstones of the MVC-pattern. But the big question is; How should you divide the controller of a MVC-implementation into smaller manageable pieces? (Applies to MVC in iOS in this case) There might be a general pattern for solving this, although I am specifically looking for a solution for iOS. Please give an example of a good pattern for solving this issue. Also an argument why this solution is awesome.

  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

• The use of Test-Driven Development in Non-Greenfield Projects?

  - by JHarley1

  So here is a question for you, having read some great answers to questions such as "Test-Driven Development - Convince Me". So my question is: "Can Test-Driven Development be used effectively on non-Greenfield projects?" To specify: I would really like to know if people have had experience in using TDD in projects where there was already non-TDD elements present? And the problems that they then faced.

  Read the article

• .NET - refactoring code

  - by w0051977

  I have inherited and now further develop a large application consisting of an ASP.NET application, VB6 and VB.NET application. The software was poorly written. I am trying to refactor the code as I go along. The changes I am making are not live (they are contained in a folder on my development machine). This is proving to be time consuming and I am doing this along side other work which is the prioritiy. My question is: is this a practical approach or is there a better methodology for refactoring code? I don't have any experience with version control software or source control software and I am wandering if this is what I am missing. I am a sole developer.

  Read the article

• How do I overcome paralysis by analysis when coding?

  - by LuxuryMode

  When I start a new project, I often times immediately start thinking about the details of implementation. "Where am I gonna put the DataBaseHandler? How should I use it? Should classes that want to use it extend from some Abstract superclass..? Should I an interface? What level of abstraction am I going to use in my class that contains methods for sending requests and parsing data?" I end up stalling for a long time because I want to code for extensibility and reusability. But I feel it almost impossible to get past thinking about how to implement perfectly. And then, if I try to just say "screw it, just get it done!", I hit a brick wall pretty quickly because my code isn't organized, I mixed levels of abstractions, etc. What are some techniques/methods you have for launching into a new project while also setting up a logical/modular structure that will scale well?

  Read the article

• Email Content creation | Proper design

  - by Umesh Awasthi

  Working on an E commerce application where we need to send so many email to customer like Registration email Forget Password Order placed There are many other emails that can be sent, I already have emailService in place which is responsible for sending email and It needs an Email object, Everything is working find, but I am struck at one point and not sure how best this can be done. We need to create content so as it can be passed to emailService and not sure how to design this. For example, in Customer registration, I have a customerFacade which is working between Controller and ServiceLayer, I just want to delegate this Email Content creation work away from Facade layer and to make it more flexible. Currently I am creating Registration email content inside customerFacade and some how I am not liking this way, since that means for each email, I need to create content in respective Facade. What is best way to go or current approach is fine enough?

  Read the article

• Looking for some OO design advice

  - by Andrew Stephens

  I'm developing an app that will be used to open and close valves in an industrial environment, and was thinking of something simple like this:- public static void ValveController { public static void OpenValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to open the valve } public static void CloseValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to close the valve } } (The implementation would write a few bytes of data to the serial port to control the valve - an "address" derived from the valve name, and either a "1" or "0" to open or close the valve). Another dev asked whether we should instead create a separate class for each physical valve, of which there are dozens. I agree it would be nicer to write code like PlasmaValve.Open() rather than ValveController.OpenValve("plasma"), but is this overkill? Also, I was wondering how best to tackle the design with a couple of hypothetical future requirements in mind:- We are asked to support a new type of valve requiring different values to open and close it (not 0 and 1). We are asked to support a valve that can be set to any position from 0-100, rather than simply "open" or "closed". Normally I would use inheritance for this kind of thing, but I've recently started to get my head around "composition over inheritance" and wonder if there is a slicker solution to be had using composition?

  Read the article

• What is the rationale behind Apache Jena's *everything is an interface if possible* design philosophy?

  - by David Cowden

  If you are familiar with the Java RDF and OWL engine Jena, then you have run across their philosophy that everything should be specified as an interface when possible. This means that a Resource, Statement, RDFNode, Property, and even the RDF Model, etc., are, contrary to what you might first think, Interfaces instead of concrete classes. This leads to the use of Factories quite often. Since you can't instantiate a Property or Model, you must have something else do it for you --the Factory design pattern. My question, then, is, what is the reasoning behind using this pattern as opposed to a traditional class hierarchy system? It is often perfectly viable to use either one. For example, if I want a memory backed Model instead of a database-backed Model I could just instantiate those classes, I don't need ask a Factory to give me one. As an aside, I'm in the process of writing a library for manipulating Pearltrees data, which is exported from their website in the form of an RDF/XML document. As I write this library, I have many options for defining the relationships present in the Peartrees data. What is nice about the Pearltrees data is that it has a very logical class system: A tree is made up of pearls, which can be either Page, Reference, Alias, or Root pearls. My question comes from trying to figure out if I should adopt the Jena philosophy in my library which uses Jena, or if I should disregard it, pick my own design philosophy, and stick with it.

  Read the article

• How does an Engine like Source process entities?

  - by Júlio Souza

  [background information] On the Source engine (and it's antecessor, goldsrc, quake's) the game objects are divided on two types, world and entities. The world is the map geometry and the entities are players, particles, sounds, scores, etc (for the Source Engine). Every entity has a think function, which do all the logic for that entity. So, if everything that needs to be processed comes from a base class with the think function, the game engine could store everything on a list and, on every frame, loop through it and call that function. On a first look, this idea is reasonable, but it can take too much resources, if the game has a lot of entities.. [end of background information] So, how does a engine like Source take care (process, update, draw, etc) of the game objects?

  Read the article

• Is it appropriate for a class to only be a collection of information with no logic?

  - by qegal

  Say I have a class Person that has instance variables age, weight, and height, and another class Fruit that has instance variables sugarContent and texture. The Person class has no methods save setters and getters, while the Fruit class has both setters and getters and logic methods like calculateSweetness. Is the Fruit class the type of class that is better practice than the Person class. What I mean by this is that the Person class seems like it doesn't have much purpose; it exists solely to organize data, while the Fruit class organizes data and actually contains methods for logic.

  Read the article

• Should I add parameters to instance methods that use those instance fields as parameters?

  - by john smith optional

  I have an instance method that uses instance fields in its work. I can leave the method without that parameters as they're available to me, or I can add them to the parameter list, thus making my method more "generic" and not reliable on the class. On the other hand, additional parameters will be in parameters list. Which approach is preferable and why? Edit: at the moment I don't know if my method will be public or private. Edit2: clarification: both method and fields are instance level.

  Read the article

• Implementing game rules in a tactical battle board game

  - by Setzer22

  I'm trying to create a game similar to what one would find in a typical D&D board game combat. For mor examples you could think of games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem or Disgaea. I should say that I'm using design by component so far, but I can't find a nice way to fit components into the part I want to ask. I'm struggling right now with the "game rules" logic. That is, the code that displays the menu, allows the player to select units, and command them, then tells the unit game objects what to do given the player input. The best way I could thing of handling this was using a big state machine, so everything that could be done in a "turn" is handled by this state machine, and the update code of this state machine does different things depending on the state. This approach, though, leads to a large amount of code (anything not model-related) to go into a big class. Of course I can subdivide this big class into more classes, but it doesn't feel modular and upgradable enough. I'd like to know of better systems to handle this in order to be able to upgrade the game with new rules without having a monstruous if/else chain (or switch / case, for that matter). So, any ideas? I'd also like to ask that if you recommend me a specific design pattern to also provide some kind of example or further explanation and not stick to "Yeah you should use MVC and it'll work".

  Read the article

• Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

  - by Guillaume

  I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

  Read the article

• Caching strategies for entities and collections

  - by Rob West

  We currently have an application framework in which we automatically cache both entities and collections of entities at the business layer (using .NET cache). So the method GetWidget(int id) checks the cache using a key GetWidget_Id_{0} before hitting the database, and the method GetWidgetsByStatusId(int statusId) checks the cache using GetWidgets_Collections_ByStatusId_{0}. If the objects are not in the cache they are retrieved from the database and added to the cache. This approach is obviously quick for read scenarios, and as a blanket approach is quick for us to implement, but requires large numbers of cache keys to be purged when CRUD operations are carried out on entities. Obviously as additional methods are added this impacts performance and the benefits of caching diminish. I'm interested in alternative approaches to handling caching of collections. I know that NHibernate caches a list of the identifiers in the collection rather than the actual entities. Is this an approach other people have tried - what are the pros and cons? In particular I am looking for options that optimise performance and can be implemented automatically through boilerplate generated code (we have our own code generation tool). I know some people will say that caching needs to be done by hand each time to meet the needs of the specific situation but I am looking for something that will get us most of the way automatically.

  Read the article

• Architecture of interaction modes ("paint tools") for a 3D paint program

  - by Bernhard Kausler

  We are developing a Qt-based application to navigate through and paint on a volume treated as a 3D pixel graphic. The layout of the app consists of three orthogonal slice views on which the user may paint stuff like dots, circles etc. and also erase already painted pixels. Think of a 3D Gimp or MS Paint. How would you design the the architecture for the different interaction modes (i.e. paint tools)? My idea is: use the MVC pattern have a separate controler for every interaction mode install an event filter on all three slice views to collect all incoming user interaction events (mouse, keyboard) redirect the events to the currently active interaction controler I would appreciate critical comments on that idea.

  Read the article

• Composite-like pattern and SRP violation

  - by jimmy_keen

  Recently I've noticed myself implementing pattern similar to the one described below. Starting with interface: public interface IUserProvider { User GetUser(UserData data); } GetUser method's pure job is to somehow return user (that would be an operation speaking in composite terms). There might be many implementations of IUserProvider, which all do the same thing - return user basing on input data. It doesn't really matter, as they are only leaves in composite terms and that's fairly simple. Now, my leaves are used by one own them all composite class, which at the moment follows this implementation: public interface IUserProviderComposite : IUserProvider { void RegisterProvider(Predicate<UserData> predicate, IUserProvider provider); } public class UserProviderComposite : IUserProviderComposite { public User GetUser(SomeUserData data) ... public void RegisterProvider(Predicate<UserData> predicate, IUserProvider provider) ... } Idea behind UserProviderComposite is simple. You register providers, and this class acts as a reusable entry-point. When calling GetUser, it will use whatever registered provider matches predicate for requested user data (if that helps, it stores key-value map of predicates and providers internally). Now, what confuses me is whether RegisterProvider method (brings to mind composite's add operation) should be a part of that class. It kind of expands its responsibilities from providing user to also managing providers collection. As far as my understanding goes, this violates Single Responsibility Principle... or am I wrong here? I thought about extracting register part into separate entity and inject it to the composite. As long as it looks decent on paper (in terms of SRP), it feels bit awkward because: I would be essentially injecting Dictionary (or other key-value map) ...or silly wrapper around it, doing nothing more than adding entires This won't be following composite anymore (as add won't be part of composite) What exactly is the presented pattern called? Composite felt natural to compare it with, but I realize it's not exactly the one however nothing else rings any bells. Which approach would you take - stick with SRP or stick with "composite"/pattern? Or is the design here flawed and given the problem this can be done in a better way?

  Read the article

• Opensource showcase for MVC in Java Swing

  - by Regular John

  I've allready created small desktop CRUD applications using Java/Swing. In hindsight I'm not quite sure if the overall design of these applications is good. I've also done some reading on MVC and looked at different Swing-tutorials. My problem is, that I've got a very theroatical knowledge of MVC and on the other hand, most Swing-resources don't implement the MVC-pattern. Now I would like to get my hands dirty and see how MVC is implemented in Swing in a real-world-application. Are there any opensource project you could recommend? It would be also interesting to have more than one project, to see different approaches. Best fit would be a software, that uses a relational database in the backend, to see an overall design, that I can compare to my former applications.

  Read the article

• Best approach for utility class library using Visual Studio

  - by gregsdennis

  I have a collection of classes that I commonly (but not always) use when developing WPF applications. The trouble I have is that if I want to use only a subset of the classes, I have three options: Distribute the entire DLL. While this approach makes code maintenance easier, it does require distributing a large DLL for minimal code functionality. Copy the classes I need to the current application. This approach solves the problem of not distributing unused code, but completely eliminates code maintenance. Maintain each class/feature in a separate project. This solves both problems from above, but then I have dramatically increased the number of files that need to be distributed, and it bloats my VS solution with tiny projects. Ideally, I'd like a combination of 1 & 3: A single project that contains all of my utility classes but builds to a DLL containing only the classes that are used in the current application. Are there any other common approaches that I haven't considered? Is there any way to do what I want? Thank you.

  Read the article

• How do game programmers design their classes to reuse in AI, network and play and pass mode?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  For a two player game where, your opponent could be on the network, CPU itself or near you where you would play turn by turn on the same machine. How do people design classes for re-use ? I am in a similar situation and have no experience in making such complex games. But here is what I have thought, If I am a player object , I should only be interacting with the GameManager or GameEngine Singleton , from which I will get various notifications about the game status. I dont care where and who my opponent is, this GameManager depending upon the game mode, will interact with gameNetworkManager , or AI tell me what the opponent played. I am not sure about the scenario where we play and pass [turn by turn on same machine]. Hoping for a brief but clear explanation or at least a link to a similar resource.:)

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern for chained observers?

  - by sharakan

  Several times, I've found myself in a situation where I want to add functionality to an existing Observer-Observable relationship. For example, let's say I have an Observable class called PriceFeed, instances of which are created by a variety of PriceSources. Observers on this are notified whenever the underlying PriceSource updates the PriceFeed with a new price. Now I want to add a feature that allows a (temporary) override to be set on the PriceFeed. The PriceSource should still update prices on the PriceFeed, but for as long as the override is set, whenever a consumer asks PriceFeed for it's current value, it should get the override. The way I did this was to introduce a new OverrideablePriceFeed that is itself both an Observer and an Observable, and that decorates the actual PriceFeed. It's implementation of .getPrice() is straight from Chain of Responsibility, but how about the handling of Observable events? When an override is set or cleared, it should issue it's own event to Observers, as well as forwarding events from the underlying PriceFeed. I think of this as some kind of a chained observer, and was curious if there's a more definitive description of a similar pattern.

  Read the article

• One method with many behaviours or many methods

  - by Krowar

  This question is quite general and not related to a specific language, but more to coding best practices. Recently, I've been developing a feature for my app that is requested in many cases with slightly different behaviours. This function send emails , but to different receivers, or with different texts according to the parameters. The method signature is something like public static sendMail (t_message message = null , t_user receiver = null , stream attachedPiece = null) And then there are many condition inside the method, like if(attachedPiece != null) { } I've made the choice to do it this way (with a single method) because it prevents me to rewrite the (nearly) same method 10 times, but I'm not sure that it's a good practice. What should I have done? Write 10 sendMail method with different parameters? Are there obvious pros and cons for these different ways of programming? Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• Class Design and Structure Online Web Store

  - by Phorce

  I hope I have asked this in the right forum. Basically, we're designing an Online Store and I am designing the class structure for ordering a product and want some clarification on what I have so far: So a customer comes, selects their product, chooses the quantity and selects 'Purchase' (I am using the Facade Pattern - So subsystems execute when this action is performed). My class structure: < Order > < Product > <Customer > There is no inheritance, more Association < Order has < Product , < Customer has < Order . Does this structure look ok? I've noticed that I don't handle the "Quantity" separately, I was just going to add this into the "Product" class, but, do you think it should be a class of it's own? Hope someone can help.

  Read the article

• Constructs for wrapping a hardware state machine

  - by Henry Gomersall

  I am using a piece of hardware with a well defined C API. The hardware is stateful, with the relevant API calls needing to be in the correct order for the hardware to work properly. The API calls themselves will always return, passing back a flag that advises whether the call was successful, or if not, why not. The hardware will not be left in some ill defined state. In effect, the API calls advise indirectly of the current state of the hardware if the state is not correct to perform a given operation. It seems to be a pretty common hardware API style. My question is this: Is there a well established design pattern for wrapping such a hardware state machine in a high level language, such that consistency is maintained? My development is in Python. I ideally wish the hardware state machine to be abstracted to a much simpler state machine and wrapped in an object that represents the hardware. I'm not sure what should happen if an attempt is made to create multiple objects representing the same piece of hardware. I apologies for the slight vagueness, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and so am fishing for assistance of the description as well!

  Read the article

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