Search Results

Search found 16838 results on 674 pages for 'writing patterns dita cms'.

Page 51/674 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

• What is a good design pattern / lib for iOS 5 to synchronize with a web service?

  - by Junto

  We are developing an iOS application that needs to synchronize with a remote server using web services. The existing web services have an "operations" style rather than REST (implemented in WCF but exposing JSON HTTP endpoints). We are unsure of how to structure the web services to best fit with iOS and would love some advice. We are also interested in how to manage the synchronization process within iOS. Without going into detailed specifics, the application allows the user to estimate repair costs at a remote site. These costs are broken down by room and item. If the user has an internet connection this data can be sent back to the server. Multiple photographs can be taken of each item, but they will be held in a separate queue, which sends when the connection is optimal (ideally wifi). Our backend application controls the unique ids for each room and item. Thus, each time we send these costs to the server, the server echoes the central database ids back, thus, that they can be synchronized in the mobile app. I have simplified this a little, since the operations contract is actually much larger, but I just want to illustrate the basic requirements without complicating matters. Firstly, the web service architecture: We currently have two operations: GetCosts and UpdateCosts. My assumption is that if we used a strict REST architecture we would need to break our single web service operations into multiple smaller services. This would make the services much more chatty and we would also have to guarantee a delivery order from the app. For example, we need to make sure that containing rooms are added before the item. Although this seems much more RESTful, our perception is that these extra calls are expensive connections (security checks, database calls, etc). Does the type of web api (operation over service focus) determine chunky vs chatty? Since this is mobile (3G), are we better handling lots of smaller messages, or a few large ones? Secondly, the iOS side. What is the current advice on how to manage data synchronization within the iOS (5) app itself. We need multiple queues and we need to guarantee delivery order in each queue (and technically, ordering between queues). The server needs to control unique ids and other properties and echo them back to the application. The application then needs to update an internal database and when re-updating, make sure the correct ids are available in the update message (essentially multiple inserts and updates in one call). Our backend has a ton of business logic operating on these cost estimates. We don't want any of this in the app itself. Currently the iOS app sends the cost data, and then the server echoes that data back with populated ids (and other data). The existing cost data is deleted and the echoed response data is added to the client database on the device. This is causing us problems, because any photos might not have been sent, but the original entity tree has been removed and replaced. Obviously updating the costs tree rather than replacing it would remove this problem, but I'm not sure if there are any nice xcode libraries out there to do such things. I welcome any advice you might have.

  Read the article

• How to design console application with good seperation of UI from Logic

  - by JavaSa

  Is it considered an overkill for console application to be design like MVC , MVP or N tier architecture? If not which is more common and if you can link me to simple example of it. I want to implement a tic tac toe game in console application. I have a solution which hold two projects: TicTacToeBusinessLogic (Class library project) and TicTacToeConsoleApplication (Console application project) to represent the view logic. In the TicTacToeConsoleApplication I've Program.cs class which holds the main entry point (public static void Main). Now I face a problem. I want the game to handle its own game flow so I can: Create new GameManager class (from BL) but this causing the view to directly know the BL part. So I'm a little confused how to write it in an acceptable way. Should I use delegates? Please show me a simple example.

  Read the article

• Must all AI states be able to react to any event?

  - by Prog

  FSMs implemented with the State design pattern are a common way to design AI agents. I am familiar with the State design pattern and know how to implement it. How is this used in games to design AI agents? Consider a simplified class Monster, representing an AI agent: class Monster { State state; // other fields omitted public void update(){ // called every game-loop cycle state.execute(this); } public void setState(State state){ this.state = state; } // irrelevant stuff omitted } There are several State subclasses implementing execute() differently. So far, classic State pattern. AI agents are subject to environmental effects and other objects communicating with them. For example, an AI agent might tell another AI agent to attack (i.e. agent.attack()). Or a fireball might tell an AI agent to fall down. This means that the agent must have methods such as attack() and fallDown(), or commonly some message receiving mechanism to understand such messages. With an FSM, the current State of the agent should be the one taking care of such method calls - i.e. the agent delegates to the current state upon every event. Is this correct? If correct, how is this done? Are all states obligated by their superclass to implement methods such as attack(), fallDown() etc., so the agent can always delegate to them on almost every event? Or is it done in some other way?

  Read the article

• Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• Design: How to model / where to store relational data between classes

  - by Walker

  I'm trying to figure out the best design here, and I can see multiple approaches, but none that seems "right." There are three relevant classes here: Base, TradingPost, and Resource. Each Base has a TradingPost which can offer various Resources depending on the Base's tech level. Where is the right place to store the minimum tech level a base must possess to offer any given resource? A database seems like overkill. Putting it in each subclass of Resource seems wrong--that's not an intrinsic property of the Resource. Do I have a mediating class, and if so, how does it work? It's important that I not be duplicating code; that I have one place where I set the required tech level for a given item. Essentially, where does this data belong? P.S. Feel free to change the title; I struggled to come up with one that fits.

  Read the article

• Installing Ubuntu by writing on the Hard Drive

  - by Alexandros Marinos

  I have a laptop whose CD drive is not operational and is too old to boot from a flash stick. I have bought a new hard drive for it for which I have an enclosure. Is there a way to configure the disk as an external to my current ubuntu setup, copy some form of ubuntu on the hard drive, place the HD in the old laptop, and have ubuntu install ubuntu from there? Effectively what I am asking about is some sort of live cd that installs on itself (since the HD is writeable).

  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 play many sounds at once in OpenAL

  - by Krom Stern

  I'm developing an RTS game and I would like to add sounds to it. My choice has landed on OpenAL. I have plenty of units which from time to time make sounds: fSound.Play(sfx_shoot, location). Sounds often repeat, e.g. when squad of archers shoots arrows, but they are not synced with each other. My questions are: What is the common design pattern to play multiple sounds in OpenAL, when some of them are duplicate? What are the hardware limitations on sounds count and tricks to overcome them?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET design not SOLID

  - by w0051977

  SOLID principles are described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object-oriented_design%29 I am developing a large ASP.NET app. The previous developer created a few very large classes each with lots of different purposes. It is very difficult to maintain and extend. The classes are deployed to the web server along with the code behind files etc. I want to share a small amount of the app with another application. I am considering moving all of the classes of the ASP.NET web app to a DLL, so the small subset of functionality can be shared. I realise it would be better to only share the classes which contain code to be shared but because of the dependencies this is proving to be very difficult e.g. class A contains code that should be shared, however class A contains references to classes B, C, D, E, F, G etc, so class A cannot be shared on its own. I am planning to refactor the code in the future. As a temporary solution I am planning to convert all the classes into a single class library. Is this a bad idea and if so, is there an alternative? as I don't have time to refactor at the moment.

  Read the article

• What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

  - by Mr_E

  I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Writing equivalent LINQ Expressions in F#

  In this article we will compare LINQ expressions to the equivalent F# expressions for an F# List and show how to use projection, filtering, and other LINQ goodies in F#.

  Read the article

• Writing equivalent LINQ Expressions in F#

  In this article we will compare LINQ expressions to the equivalent F# expressions for an F# List and show how to use projection, filtering, and other LINQ goodies in F#.

  Read the article

• Is there really anything to gain with complex design? [duplicate]

  - by SB2055

  This question already has an answer here: What is enterprise software, exactly? 8 answers I've been working for a consulting firm for some time, with clients of various sizes, and I've seen web applications ranging in complexity from really simple: MVC Service Layer EF DB To really complex: MVC UoW DI / IoC Repository Service UI Tests Unit Tests Integration Tests But on both ends of the spectrum, the quality requirements are about the same. In simple projects, new devs / consultants can hop on, make changes, and contribute immediately, without having to wade through 6 layers of abstraction to understand what's going on, or risking misunderstanding some complex abstraction and costing down the line. In all cases, there was never a need to actually make code swappable or reusable - and the tests were never actually maintained past the first iteration because requirements changed, it was too time-consuming, deadlines, business pressure, etc etc. So if - in the end - testing and interfaces aren't used rapid development (read: cost-savings) is a priority the project's requirements will be changing a lot while in development ...would it be wrong to recommend a super-simple architecture, even to solve a complex problem, for an enterprise client? Is it complexity that defines enterprise solutions, or is it the reliability, # concurrent users, ease-of-maintenance, or all of the above? I know this is a very vague question, and any answer wouldn't apply to all cases, but I'm interested in hearing from devs / consultants that have been in the business for a while and that have worked with these varying degrees of complexity, to hear if the cool-but-expensive abstractions are worth the overall cost, at least while the project is in development.

  Read the article

• does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

  - by Michael Riva

  I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

  Read the article

• How to determine if class meets single responsibility principle ?

  - by user1483278

  Single Responsibility Principle is based on high cohesion principle. The difference between the two is that highly cohesive classes feature a set of responsibilities that are strongly related, while classes adhering to SRP have just one responsibility. But how do we determine whether particular class features a set of responsibilities and is thus just highly cohesive, or whether it has only one responsibility and is thus adhering to SRP? Namely, isn't it more or less subjective, since some may find class very granular ( and as such will consider a class as adhering to SRP ), while others may find it not granular enough?

  Read the article

• Ecommerce Design: Writing an 'About Me' Page

  Your 'About Me' page is an opportunity to inspire trust in your customers. We offer tips on how to write excellent ecommerce content for your &#145;About Me&#146; page.

  Read the article

• Failure Driven Development

  - by DevSolo

  At our shop, we strive to be agile. And I'd say we are making great strides. That said, a few of us have spotted a pattern we have started calling "Failure Driven Development". Failure Driven Development can basically be desribed as an agile release/iteration cycle where the bugs/features are guided not by tasks and stories with acceptance criteria, but with defects entered in the defect tracking software. Our team has a great Project Manager who strives to get the acceptance criteria from the customer(s), but it's not always possible. From my development chair, this is due to the customer either not knowing exactly what they want or (and this is the kicker) two different "camps" at the customer's main office conflict with how a story should be implemented. Camp A will losely dictate that Feature X works like this, then Camp B will fail it due not functioning like that. Hence, the term "FDD". The process is driven by "failures". This leads to my question: Has anyone else encountered this and if so, any tips/suggestions for dealing with it? We have, of course, tried to get Camp A and B to agree prior, but everyone knows this isn't always the case. Thanks

  Read the article

• A better alternative to incompatible implementations for the same interface?

  - by glenatron

  I am working on a piece of code which performs a set task in several parallel environments where the behaviour of the different components in the task are similar but quite different. This means that my implementations are quite different but they are all based on the relationships between the same interfaces, something like this: IDataReader -> ContinuousDataReader -> ChunkedDataReader IDataProcessor -> ContinuousDataProcessor -> ChunkedDataProcessor IDataWriter -> ContinuousDataWriter -> ChunkedDataWriter So that in either environment we have an IDataReader, IDataProcessor and IDataWriter and then we can use Dependency Injection to ensure that we have the correct one of each for the current environment, so if we are working with data in chunks we use the ChunkedDataReader, ChunkedDataProcessor and ChunkedDataWriter and if we have continuous data we have the continuous versions. However the behaviour of these classes is quite different internally and one could certainly not go from a ContinuousDataReader to the ChunkedDataReader even though they are both IDataProcessors. This feels to me as though it is incorrect ( possibly an LSP violation? ) and certainly not a theoretically correct way of working. It is almost as though the "real" interface here is the combination of all three classes. Unfortunately in the project I am working on with the deadlines we are working to, we're pretty much stuck with this design, but if we had a little more elbow room, what would be a better design approach in this kind of scenario?

  Read the article

• Is OOP hard because it is not natural?

  - by zvrba

  One can often hear that OOP naturally corresponds to the way people think about the world. But I would strongly disagree with this statement: We (or at least I) conceptualize the world in terms of relationships between things we encounter, but the focus of OOP is designing individual classes and their hierarchies. Note that, in everyday life, relationships and actions exist mostly between objects that would have been instances of unrelated classes in OOP. Examples of such relationships are: "my screen is on top of the table"; "I (a human being) am sitting on a chair"; "a car is on the road"; "I am typing on the keyboard"; "the coffee machine boils water", "the text is shown in the terminal window." We think in terms of bivalent (sometimes trivalent, as, for example in, "I gave you flowers") verbs where the verb is the action (relation) that operates on two objects to produce some result/action. The focus is on action, and the two (or three) [grammatical] objects have equal importance. Contrast that with OOP where you first have to find one object (noun) and tell it to perform some action on another object. The way of thinking is shifted from actions/verbs operating on nouns to nouns operating on nouns -- it is as if everything is being said in passive or reflexive voice, e.g., "the text is being shown by the terminal window". Or maybe "the text draws itself on the terminal window". Not only is the focus shifted to nouns, but one of the nouns (let's call it grammatical subject) is given higher "importance" than the other (grammatical object). Thus one must decide whether one will say terminalWindow.show(someText) or someText.show(terminalWindow). But why burden people with such trivial decisions with no operational consequences when one really means show(terminalWindow, someText)? [Consequences are operationally insignificant -- in both cases the text is shown on the terminal window -- but can be very serious in the design of class hierarchies and a "wrong" choice can lead to convoluted and hard to maintain code.] I would therefore argue that the mainstream way of doing OOP (class-based, single-dispatch) is hard because it IS UNNATURAL and does not correspond to how humans think about the world. Generic methods from CLOS are closer to my way of thinking, but, alas, this is not widespread approach. Given these problems, how/why did it happen that the currently mainstream way of doing OOP became so popular? And what, if anything, can be done to dethrone it?

  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

• Who can change the View in MVC?

  - by Luke

  I'm working on a thick client graph displaying and manipulation application. I'm trying to apply the MVC pattern to our 3D visualization component. Here is what I have for the Model, View, and Controller: Model - The graph and it's metadata. This includes vertices, edges, and the attributes of each. It does not contain position information, icons, colors, or anything display related. View - This would commonly be called a scene graph. It includes the 3D display information, texture information, color information, and anything else that is related specifically to the visualization of the model. Controller - The controller takes the view and displays it in a Window using OpenGL (but it could potentially be any 3D graphics package). The application has various "layouts" that change the position of the vertices in the display. For instance, one layout may arrange the vertices in a circle. Is it common for these layouts to access and change the view directly? Should they go through the Controller to access the View? If they go through the Controller, should they just ask for direct access to the View or should each change go through the controller? I realize this is a bit different from the standard MVC example where there a finite number of Views. In this case, the View can change in an infinite number of ways. Perhaps I'm shattering some basic principle of MVC here. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• Design pattern: static function call with input/output containers?

  - by Pavlo Dyban

  I work for a company in software research department. We use algorithms from our real software and wrap them so that we can use them for prototyping. Every time an algorithm interface changes, we need to adapt our wrappers respectively. Recently all algorithms have been refactored in such a manner that instead of accepting many different inputs and returning outputs via referenced parameters, they now accept one input data container and one output data container (the latter is passed by reference). Algorithm interface is limited to a static function call like that: class MyAlgorithm{ static bool calculate(MyAlgorithmInput input, MyAlgorithmOutput &output); } This is actually a very powerful design, though I have never seen it in a C++ programming environment before. Changes in the number of parameters and their data types are now encapsulated and they don't change the algorithm callback. In the latest algorithm which I have developed I used the same scheme. Now I want to know if this is a popular design pattern and what it is called.

  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

• Should Android and iPhone UI be different?

  - by Phonon

  I'm not completely new to developing apps, but I'm at a point where I'm trying to develop something and deploy it on several mobile platforms. To only concentrate on two major ones, suppose I'm developing an app for Android and iPhone and designing UI and the general user interaction architecture. Both platforms give guidelines as to how their UIs should work. For example, most iPhone apps have the Navigation Bar (the one that says Testing 1 and has a Back button) and an Icon Bar for navigating a program, while Android uses an Options Menu fetched via a Menu button and the "back" navigation is handled with the physical Back button on the device. I've seen many apps that try to force the same UI on every platform. For example, custom-building an iPhone style Icon Bar and putting it in their Android apps, but it just doesn't quite look right to me and it feels like it violates UI design guidelines somewhat. Are there any good design patters for implementing something sufficiently similar on both platforms, yet still platform-specific enough so that the user would not feel out of their comfort zone? What do people usually do in these situations?

  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

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