Search Results

Search found 17921 results on 717 pages for 'cocoa design patterns'.

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

Page 53/717 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

  • Design pattern for cost calculator app?

    - by Anders Svensson
    Hi, I have a problem that I’ve tried to get help for before, but I wasn’t able to solve it then, so I’m trying to simplify the problem now to see if I can get some more concrete help with this because it is driving me crazy… Basically, I have a working (more complex) version of this application, which is a project cost calculator. But because I am at the same time trying to learn to design my applications better, I would like some input on how I could improve this design. Basically the main thing I want is input on the conditionals that (here) appear repeated in two places. The suggestions I got before was to use the strategy pattern or factory pattern. I also know about the Martin Fowler book with the suggestion to Refactor conditional with polymorphism. I understand that principle in his simpler example. But how can I do either of these things here (if any would be suitable)? The way I see it, the calculation is dependent on a couple of conditions: 1. What kind of service is it, writing or analysis? 2. Is the project small, medium or large? (Please note that there may be other parameters as well, equally different, such as “are the products new or previously existing?” So such parameters should be possible to add, but I tried to keep the example simple with only two parameters to be able to get concrete help) So refactoring with polymorphism would imply creating a number of subclasses, which I already have for the first condition (type of service), and should I really create more subclasses for the second condition as well (size)? What would that become, AnalysisSmall, AnalysisMedium, AnalysisLarge, WritingSmall, etc…??? No, I know that’s not good, I just don’t see how to work with that pattern anyway else? I see the same problem basically for the suggestions of using the strategy pattern (and the factory pattern as I see it would just be a helper to achieve the polymorphism above). So please, if anyone has concrete suggestions as to how to design these classes the best way I would be really grateful! Please also consider whether I have chosen the objects correctly too, or if they need to be redesigned. (Responses like "you should consider the factory pattern" will obviously not be helpful... I've already been down that road and I'm stumped at precisely how in this case) Regards, Anders The code (very simplified, don’t mind the fact that I’m using strings instead of enums, not using a config file for data etc, that will be done as necessary in the real application once I get the hang of these design problems): public abstract class Service { protected Dictionary<string, int> _hours; protected const int SMALL = 2; protected const int MEDIUM = 8; public int NumberOfProducts { get; set; } public abstract int GetHours(); } public class Writing : Service { public Writing(int numberOfProducts) { NumberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _hours = new Dictionary<string, int> { { "small", 125 }, { "medium", 100 }, { "large", 60 } }; } public override int GetHours() { if (NumberOfProducts <= SMALL) return _hours["small"] * NumberOfProducts; if (NumberOfProducts <= MEDIUM) return (_hours["small"] * SMALL) + (_hours["medium"] * (NumberOfProducts - SMALL)); return (_hours["small"] * SMALL) + (_hours["medium"] * (MEDIUM - SMALL)) + (_hours["large"] * (NumberOfProducts - MEDIUM)); } } public class Analysis : Service { public Analysis(int numberOfProducts) { NumberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _hours = new Dictionary<string, int> { { "small", 56 }, { "medium", 104 }, { "large", 200 } }; } public override int GetHours() { if (NumberOfProducts <= SMALL) return _hours["small"]; if (NumberOfProducts <= MEDIUM) return _hours["medium"]; return _hours["large"]; } } public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); List<int> quantities = new List<int>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { quantities.Add(i); } comboBoxNumberOfProducts.DataSource = quantities; } private void comboBoxNumberOfProducts_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { Service writing = new Writing((int) comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); Service analysis = new Analysis((int) comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); labelWriterHours.Text = writing.GetHours().ToString(); labelAnalysisHours.Text = analysis.GetHours().ToString(); } }

    Read the article

  • design using a readonly class in c#

    - by edosoft
    Hi Small design question here. I'm trying to develop a calculation app in C#. I have a class, let's call it InputRecord, which holds 100s of fields (multi dimensional arrays) This InputRecordclass will be used in a number of CalculationEngines. Each CalculcationEngine can make changes to a number of fields in the InputRecord. These changes are steps needed for it's calculation. Now I don't want the local changes made to the InputRecord to be used in other CalculcationEngine's classes. The first solution that comes to mind is using a struct: these are value types. However I'd like to use inheritance: each CalculationEngine needs a few fields only relevant to that engine: it's has it's own InputRecord, based on BaseInputRecord. Can anyone point me to a design that will help me accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Documenting a policy based design

    - by academicRobot
    I'm re-working some prototype code into a policy based design in C++, and I'm wondering what the best practice is for documenting the design. My current plan is to document: Policy hierarchy Overview of each policy Description of each type/value/function in each policy I was thinking of putting this into a doxygen module, but this looks like it will be a bit awkward since formatting will have to be done by hand without code to base the doc on (that is, documenting the policies rather than the implementation of the policies). So my questions are: Are there other aspects of the design that should be documented? Are there any tricks to doing this efficiently in doxygen? Is there a tool other than doxygen thats better suited to this? What are some examples of well documented policy based design? This is my first serious attempt at policy based design. I think I have a working grasp of the principles, but whatever naivety I expose in this question is fair game for an answer too.

    Read the article

  • Singletons and other design issues

    - by Ahmed Saleh
    I have worked using different languages like C++/Java and currently AS3. Most applications were computer vision, and small 2D computer games. Most companies that I have worked for, they use Singletons in a language like AS3, to retrieve elements or classes in an easy way. Their problem is basically they needs some variables or to call other functions from other classes. In a language like AS3, there is no private constructor, and they write a hacky code to prevent new instances. In Java and C++ I also faced the situation that I need to use other classe's members or to call their functions in different classes. The question is, is there a better or another design, to let other classes interact with each others without using singletons? I feel that composition is the answer, but I need more detailed solutions or design suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Analysis and Design for Functional Programming

    - by edalorzo
    How do you deal with analysis and design phases when you plan to develop a system using a functional programming language like Haskell? My background is in imperative/object-oriented programming languages, and therefore, I am used to use case analysis and the use of UML to document the design of program. But the thing is that UML is inherently related to the object-oriented way of doing software. And I am intrigued about what would be the best way to develop documentation and define software designs for a system that is going to be developed using functional programming. Would you still use use case analysis or perhaps structured analysis and design instead? How do software architects define the high-level design of the system so that developers follow it? What do you show to you clients or to new developers when you are supposed to present a design of the solution? How do you document a picture of the whole thing without having first to write it all? Is there anything comparable to UML in the functional world?

    Read the article

  • ready to use design pattern APIs for PHP?

    - by ajsie
    i know that in Java you can use their built-in APIs for design pattern. eg. if you want to use the observer pattern, you just have to extend your Subject class with the Observable class. is this possible for PHP? are there any libraries for the design patterns ready to use. in this way you don't have to reinvent the wheel and you also let many developers follow a standard. does Zend library have these API:s?

    Read the article

  • High level programming logic, design, pattern

    - by Muhammad Shahzad
    I have been doing programming from last 7 years, getting better and better, but still i think that am lacking something. I have been doing work in JOOMLA, MAGENTO, WP, Custom PHP, Opencart, laravel, codeignitor. Sometimes i need to design logic for a huge database application, in the applications we need nesting loops and queries, although i follow OOPS standards, ORM etc, still i feel i need more robust coding designs. I need to know how can i improve these things, so that code remain neat, efficient and faster. Also how big webapps like facebook twitter tests there code speed? How high level programmers choose design patterns. If you can help me find something useful with examples?

    Read the article

  • More swing design & actions

    - by takoi
    Im pretty new to gui programming so i've been reading through every post on this site about swing and design. Whats been answered over and over again is that one should have a class which handles all the action. Like this: (GUI being some JFrame) Now, this works great for one-way actions, like OpenDialog. But the actions for buttons in DialogA and B will have to have access to all the components (there will be many) in its dialog, and the controller. This is where im stuck. The only sane way i can see is to put it in DialogA/B but i would then need to pass the controller all the way down, through classes that dont even need it, and it'll get all spaghetti. Really dont want that. Someone must have encountered this problem before. So where should i put this Action? Or should i just drop the whole design?

    Read the article

  • Flow-Design Cheat Sheet &ndash; Part I, Notation

    - by Ralf Westphal
    You want to avoid the pitfalls of object oriented design? Then this is the right place to start. Use Flow-Oriented Analysis (FOA) and –Design (FOD or just FD for Flow-Design) to understand a problem domain and design a software solution. Flow-Orientation as described here is related to Flow-Based Programming, Event-Based Programming, Business Process Modelling, and even Event-Driven Architectures. But even though “thinking in flows” is not new, I found it helpful to deviate from those precursors for several reasons. Some aim at too big systems for the average programmer, some are concerned with only asynchronous processing, some are even not very much concerned with programming at all. What I was looking for was a design method to help in software projects of any size, be they large or tiny, involing synchronous or asynchronous processing, being local or distributed, running on the web or on the desktop or on a smartphone. That´s why I took ideas from all of the above sources and some additional and came up with Event-Based Components which later got repositioned and renamed to Flow-Design. In the meantime this has generated some discussion (in the German developer community) and several teams have started to work with Flow-Design. Also I´ve conducted quite some trainings using Flow-Orientation for design. The results are very promising. Developers find it much easier to design software using Flow-Orientation than OOAD-based object orientation. Since Flow-Orientation is moving fast and is not covered completely by a single source like a book, demand has increased for at least an overview of the current state of its notation. This page is trying to answer this demand by briefly introducing/describing every notational element as well as their translation into C# source code. Take this as a cheat sheet to put next to your whiteboard when designing software. However, please do not expect any explanation as to the reasons behind Flow-Design elements. Details on why Flow-Design at all and why in this specific way you´ll find in the literature covering the topic. Here´s a resource page on Flow-Design/Event-Based Components, if you´re able to read German. Notation Connected Functional Units The basic element of any FOD are functional units (FU): Think of FUs as some kind of software code block processing data. For the moment forget about classes, methods, “components”, assemblies or whatever. See a FU as an abstract piece of code. Software then consists of just collaborating FUs. I´m using circles/ellipses to draw FUs. But if you like, use rectangles. Whatever suites your whiteboard needs best.   The purpose of FUs is to process input and produce output. FUs are transformational. However, FUs are not called and do not call other FUs. There is no dependency between FUs. Data just flows into a FU (input) and out of it (output). From where and where to is of no concern to a FU.   This way FUs can be concatenated in arbitrary ways:   Each FU can accept input from many sources and produce output for many sinks:   Flows Connected FUs form a flow with a start and an end. Data is entering a flow at a source, and it´s leaving it through a sink. Think of sources and sinks as special FUs which conntect wires to the environment of a network of FUs.   Wiring Details Data is flowing into/out of FUs through wires. This is to allude to electrical engineering which since long has been working with composable parts. Wires are attached to FUs usings pins. They are the entry/exit points for the data flowing along the wires. Input-/output pins currently need not be drawn explicitly. This is to keep designing on a whiteboard simple and quick.   Data flowing is of some type, so wires have a type attached to them. And pins have names. If there is only one input pin and output pin on a FU, though, you don´t need to mention them. The default is Process for a single input pin, and Result for a single output pin. But you´re free to give even single pins different names.   There is a shortcut in use to address a certain pin on a destination FU:   The type of the wire is put in parantheses for two reasons. 1. This way a “no-type” wire can be easily denoted, 2. this is a natural way to describe tuples of data.   To describe how much data is flowing, a star can be put next to the wire type:   Nesting – Boards and Parts If more than 5 to 10 FUs need to be put in a flow a FD starts to become hard to understand. To keep diagrams clutter free they can be nested. You can turn any FU into a flow: This leads to Flow-Designs with different levels of abstraction. A in the above illustration is a high level functional unit, A.1 and A.2 are lower level functional units. One of the purposes of Flow-Design is to be able to describe systems on different levels of abstraction and thus make it easier to understand them. Humans use abstraction/decomposition to get a grip on complexity. Flow-Design strives to support this and make levels of abstraction first class citizens for programming. You can read the above illustration like this: Functional units A.1 and A.2 detail what A is supposed to do. The whole of A´s responsibility is decomposed into smaller responsibilities A.1 and A.2. FU A thus does not do anything itself anymore! All A is responsible for is actually accomplished by the collaboration between A.1 and A.2. Since A now is not doing anything anymore except containing A.1 and A.2 functional units are devided into two categories: boards and parts. Boards are just containing other functional units; their sole responsibility is to wire them up. A is a board. Boards thus depend on the functional units nested within them. This dependency is not of a functional nature, though. Boards are not dependent on services provided by nested functional units. They are just concerned with their interface to be able to plug them together. Parts are the workhorses of flows. They contain the real domain logic. They actually transform input into output. However, they do not depend on other functional units. Please note the usage of source and sink in boards. They correspond to input-pins and output-pins of the board.   Implicit Dependencies Nesting functional units leads to a dependency tree. Boards depend on nested functional units, they are the inner nodes of the tree. Parts are independent, they are the leafs: Even though dependencies are the bane of software development, Flow-Design does not usually draw these dependencies. They are implicitly created by visually nesting functional units. And they are harmless. Boards are so simple in their functionality, they are little affected by changes in functional units they are depending on. But functional units are implicitly dependent on more than nested functional units. They are also dependent on the data types of the wires attached to them: This is also natural and thus does not need to be made explicit. And it pertains mainly to parts being dependent. Since boards don´t do anything with regard to a problem domain, they don´t care much about data types. Their infrastructural purpose just needs types of input/output-pins to match.   Explicit Dependencies You could say, Flow-Orientation is about tackling complexity at its root cause: that´s dependencies. “Natural” dependencies are depicted naturally, i.e. implicitly. And whereever possible dependencies are not even created. Functional units don´t know their collaborators within a flow. This is core to Flow-Orientation. That makes for high composability of functional units. A part is as independent of other functional units as a motor is from the rest of the car. And a board is as dependend on nested functional units as a motor is on a spark plug or a crank shaft. With Flow-Design software development moves closer to how hardware is constructed. Implicit dependencies are not enough, though. Sometimes explicit dependencies make designs easier – as counterintuitive this might sound. So FD notation needs a ways to denote explicit dependencies: Data flows along wires. But data does not flow along dependency relations. Instead dependency relations represent service calls. Functional unit C is depending on/calling services on functional unit S. If you want to be more specific, name the services next to the dependency relation: Although you should try to stay clear of explicit dependencies, they are fundamentally ok. See them as a way to add another dimension to a flow. Usually the functionality of the independent FU (“Customer repository” above) is orthogonal to the domain of the flow it is referenced by. If you like emphasize this by using different shapes for dependent and independent FUs like above. Such dependencies can be used to link in resources like databases or shared in-memory state. FUs can not only produce output but also can have side effects. A common pattern for using such explizit dependencies is to hook a GUI into a flow as the source and/or the sink of data: Which can be shortened to: Treat FUs others depend on as boards (with a special non-FD API the dependent part is connected to), but do not embed them in a flow in the diagram they are depended upon.   Attributes of Functional Units Creation and usage of functional units can be modified with attributes. So far the following have shown to be helpful: Singleton: FUs are by default multitons. FUs in the same of different flows with the same name refer to the same functionality, but to different instances. Think of functional units as objects that get instanciated anew whereever they appear in a design. Sometimes though it´s helpful to reuse the same instance of a functional unit; this is always due to valuable state it holds. Signify this by annotating the FU with a “(S)”. Multiton: FUs on which others depend are singletons by default. This is, because they usually are introduced where shared state comes into play. If you want to change them to be a singletons mark them with a “(M)”. Configurable: Some parts need to be configured before the can do they work in a flow. Annotate them with a “(C)” to have them initialized before any data items to be processed by them arrive. Do not assume any order in which FUs are configured. How such configuration is happening is an implementation detail. Entry point: In each design there needs to be a single part where “it all starts”. That´s the entry point for all processing. It´s like Program.Main() in C# programs. Mark the entry point part with an “(E)”. Quite often this will be the GUI part. How the entry point is started is an implementation detail. Just consider it the first FU to start do its job.   Patterns / Standard Parts If more than a single wire is attached to an output-pin that´s called a split (or fork). The same data is flowing on all of the wires. Remember: Flow-Designs are synchronous by default. So a split does not mean data is processed in parallel afterwards. Processing still happens synchronously and thus one branch after another. Do not assume any specific order of the processing on the different branches after the split.   It is common to do a split and let only parts of the original data flow on through the branches. This effectively means a map is needed after a split. This map can be implicit or explicit.   Although FUs can have multiple input-pins it is preferrable in most cases to combine input data from different branches using an explicit join: The default output of a join is a tuple of its input values. The default behavior of a join is to output a value whenever a new input is received. However, to produce its first output a join needs an input for all its input-pins. Other join behaviors can be: reset all inputs after an output only produce output if data arrives on certain input-pins

    Read the article

  • AJAX Web Application Design

    - by Colonel Sponsz
    I'm working on a personal project to build a small web app that is built using AJAX requests and talks to a RESTful API rather than traditional HTML pages and form submissions. Are there any online articles or tutorials or any books that people could recommend that cover design patterns for this kind of thing?

    Read the article

  • PHP Plugin based App design

    - by Aviatrix
    Hello , I was wondering from where i can get more info on how to build plugin based Apps (design patterns , etc ). Any books and references with detailed information would be helpful. Also i like how WordpPress was made , if someone can point me on how to build something like WordpPress did would be awesome. Thanks !

    Read the article

  • “if” statement vs OO Design - 2

    - by hilal
    I encountered similar problem “if” statement vs OO Design - 1 but it is slightly different. Here is the problem that open the popup (different objects/popups) onValueChange of listbox Popup1 p1; // different objects Popup2 p2; // different objects Popup3 p3; ... listbox.add("p1"); listbox.add("p2"); listbox.add("p3"); ... listbox.addChangeHandler() { if(getSelectedItem().equals("p1")){ p1 = new Popup1(); p1.show(); } else if() {...} .... } I don't want to write "if" that if p1 then p1 = new Popup1(); p1.center(); How I can handle this situation? Any design-pattern? Here is my solution but it is so costly map() { map.put("p1", new Popup1()); map.put("p2", new Popup2()); map.put("p3", new Popup3()); } onValueChange() { map.get(selectedItem).show(); } One drawback is initialization all the popups. but it is require only when valueChange

    Read the article

  • Best Practice, objects design ASP.NET MVC

    - by DoomStone
    Hello Stackoverflow I have a code design question that have been torbeling me for a while, you see I’m doing a refactoring of my website Cosplay Denmark, a site where cospalyers can upload images of them self in their costumes. The original site was done in php, Zend MVC, but my refactoring is being done in ASP.NET MVC 2. If you take the site http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/ (You can switch to English in the left column (Sprog)) Here you see a list of all the anime’s we have on the site with images, we show the name, how many different characters and how many images there are under this anime. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach If you click on an anime will you get a list of characters within the given anime which we have images in, here do we show the character name, how many galleries and how many images. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach/Ichigo_Kurosaki/ If you click on the character name, will you get a list of the galleries under the given character in the given anime. Here we have some information about the gallery, such as image count. http://www.cosplaydanmark.dk/Costumes/Bleach/Ichigo_Kurosaki/Admi/ Should you click the gallery do you get a list of the images in the gallery. My database look like this at the moment. As you can might imagine there are a lot of different query’s to create the site, on the first site I need to do a select on the on the “animes” table and for each result, I need to do a count select on characters and galleries. My plan to create this will be one of the following Where the IList, would be a lazy load list. But I can’t decide what would be the best solution for this would be, also if there is a better way of doing this. My priority is to have good performance with a minimum lose of features and code upkeep. I’m using a service pattern with a linq to sql repository. My design is not absolute, I’m willing to change it if it could increase performance :D I hope that I have describe my question good enough for you to understand what I mean, but ask away if there are anything I have missed.

    Read the article

  • Java - Is this a bad design pattern?

    - by Walter White
    Hi all, In our application, I have seen code written like this: User.java (User entity) public class User { protected String firstName; protected String lastName; ... getters/setters (regular POJO) } UserSearchCommand { protected List<User> users; protected int currentPage; protected int sortColumnIndex; protected SortOder sortOrder; // the current user we're editing, if at all protected User user; public String getFirstName() {return(user.getFirstName());} public String getLastName() {return(user.getLastName());} } Now, from my experience, this pattern or anti-pattern looks bad to me. For one, we're mixing several concerns together. While they're all user-related, it deviates from typical POJO design. If we're going to go this route, then shouldn't we do this instead? UserSearchCommand { protected List<User> users; protected int currentPage; protected int sortColumnIndex; protected SortOder sortOrder; // the current user we're editing, if at all protected User user; public User getUser() {return(user);} } Simply return the user object, and then we can call whatever methods on it as we wish? Since this is quite different from typical bean development, JSR 303, bean validation doesn't work for this model and we have to write validators for every bean. Does anyone else see anything wrong with this design pattern or am I just being picky as a developer? Walter

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Async Design Pattern Issue

    - by Mike Mengell
    I'm in the middle of a Silverlight application and I have a function which needs to call a webservice and using the result complete the rest of the function. My issue is that I would have normally done a synchronous web service call got the result and using that carried on with the function. As Silverlight doesn't support synchronous web service calls without additional custom classes to mimic it, I figure it would be best to go with the flow of async rather than fight it. So my question relates around whats the best design pattern for working with async calls in program flow. In the following example I want to use the myFunction TypeId parameter depending on the return value of the web service call. But I don't want to call the web service until this function is called. How can I alter my code design to allow for the async call? string _myPath; bool myFunction(Guid TypeId) { WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient proxy = new WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient(); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted += new System.EventHandler<WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted>(proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdAsync(TypeId); // Get return value if (myPath == "\\Server1") { //Use the TypeId parameter in here } } void proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted(object sender, WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompletedEventArgs e) { string server = e.Result.Server; myPath = '\\' + server; } Thanks in advance, Mike

    Read the article

  • design pattern for related inputs

    - by curiousMo
    My question is a design question : let's say i have a data entry web page with 4 drop down lists, each depending on the previous one, and a bunch of text boxes. ddlCountry (DropDownList) ddlState (DropDownList) ddlCity (DropDownList) ddlBoro (DropDownList) txtAddress (TxtBox) txtZipcode(TxtBox) and an object that represents a datarow with a value for each: countrySeqid stateSeqid citySeqid boroSeqid address zipCode naturally the country, state, city and boro values will be values of primary keys of some lookup tables. when the user chooses to edits that record, i would load it from database and load it into the page. the issue that I have is how to streamline loading the DropDownLists. i have some code that would grab the object,look thru its values and move them to their corresponding input controls in one shot. but in this case i will have to load the ddlCountry with possible values, then assign values, then do the same thing for the rest of the ddls. I guess i am looking for an elegant solution. i am using asp.net, but i think it is irrelevant to the question. i am looking more into a design pattern.

    Read the article

  • Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 3.5: Node.js relay

    - by Elton Stoneman
    This is an extension to Part 3 in the IPASBR series, see also: Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 1: Exposing the on-premise service Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 2: Anonymous full-trust .NET consumer Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 3: Anonymous partial-trust consumer In Part 3 I said “there isn't actually a .NET requirement here”, and this post just follows up on that statement. In Part 3 we had an ASP.NET MVC Website making a REST call to an Azure Service Bus service; to show that the REST stuff is really interoperable, in this version we use Node.js to make the secure service call. The code is on GitHub here: IPASBR Part 3.5. The sample code is simpler than Part 3 - rather than code up a UI in Node.js, the sample just relays the REST service call out to Azure. The steps are the same as Part 3: REST call to ACS with the service identity credentials, which returns an SWT; REST call to Azure Service Bus Relay, presenting the SWT; request gets relayed to the on-premise service. In Node.js the authentication step looks like this: var options = { host: acs.namespace() + '-sb.accesscontrol.windows.net', path: '/WRAPv0.9/', method: 'POST' }; var values = { wrap_name: acs.issuerName(), wrap_password: acs.issuerSecret(), wrap_scope: 'http://' + acs.namespace() + '.servicebus.windows.net/' }; var req = https.request(options, function (res) { console.log("statusCode: ", res.statusCode); console.log("headers: ", res.headers); res.on('data', function (d) { var token = qs.parse(d.toString('utf8')); callback(token.wrap_access_token); }); }); req.write(qs.stringify(values)); req.end(); Once we have the token, we can wrap it up into an Authorization header and pass it to the Service Bus call: token = 'WRAP access_token=\"' + swt + '\"'; //... var reqHeaders = { Authorization: token }; var options = { host: acs.namespace() + '.servicebus.windows.net', path: '/rest/reverse?string=' + requestUrl.query.string, headers: reqHeaders }; var req = https.request(options, function (res) { console.log("statusCode: ", res.statusCode); console.log("headers: ", res.headers); response.writeHead(res.statusCode, res.headers); res.on('data', function (d) { var reversed = d.toString('utf8') console.log('svc returned: ' + d.toString('utf8')); response.end(reversed); }); }); req.end(); Running the sample Usual routine to add your own Azure details into Solution Items\AzureConnectionDetails.xml and “Run Custom Tool” on the .tt files. Build and you should be able to navigate to the on-premise service at http://localhost/Sixeyed.Ipasbr.Services/FormatService.svc/rest/reverse?string=abc123 and get a string response, going to the service direct. Install Node.js (v0.8.14 at time of writing), run FormatServiceRelay.cmd, navigate to http://localhost:8013/reverse?string=abc123, and you should get exactly the same response but through Node.js, via Azure Service Bus Relay to your on-premise service. The console logs the WRAP token returned from ACS and the response from Azure Service Bus Relay which it forwards:

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture verses Software Design

    Recently, I was asked what the differences between software architecture and software design are. At a very superficial level both architecture and design seem to mean relatively the same thing. However, if we examine both of these terms further we will find that they are in fact very different due to the level of details they encompass. Software Architecture can be defined as the essence of an application because it deals with high level concepts that do not include any details as to how they will be implemented. To me this gives stakeholders a view of a system or application as if someone was viewing the earth from outer space. At this distance only very basic elements of the earth can be detected like land, weather and water. As the viewer comes closer to earth the details in this view start to become more defined. Details about the earth’s surface will start to actually take form as well as mane made structures will be detected. The process of transitioning a view from outer space to inside our earth’s atmosphere is similar to how an architectural concept is transformed to an architectural design. From this vantage point stakeholders can start to see buildings and other structures as if they were looking out of a small plane window. This distance is still high enough to see a large area of the earth’s surface while still being able to see some details about the surface. This viewing point is very similar to the actual design process of an application in that it takes the very high level architectural concept or concepts and applies concrete design details to form a software design that encompasses the actual implementation details in the form of responsibilities and functions. Examples of these details include: interfaces, components, data, and connections. In review, software architecture deals with high level concepts without regard to any implementation details. Software design on the other hand takes high level concepts and applies concrete details so that software can be implemented. As part of the transition between software architecture to the creation of software design an evaluation on the architecture is recommended. There are several benefits to including this step as part of the transition process. It allows for projects to ensure that they are on the correct path as to meeting the stakeholder’s requirement goals, identifies possible cost savings and can be used to find missing or nonspecific requirements that cause ambiguity in a design. In the book “Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies”, they define key benefits to adding an architectural review process to ensure that an architecture is ready to move on to the design phase. Benefits to evaluating software architecture: Gathers all stakeholders to communicate about the project Goals are clearly defined in regards to the creation or validation of specific requirements Goals are prioritized so that when conflicts occur decisions will be made based on goal priority Defines a clear expectation of the architecture so that all stakeholders have a keen understanding of the project Ensures high quality documentation of the architecture Enables discoveries of architectural reuse  Increases the quality of architecture practices. I can remember a few projects that I worked on that could have really used an architectural review prior to being passed on to developers. This project was to create some new advertising space on the company’s website in order to sell space based on the location and some other criteria. I was one of the developer selected to lead this project and I was given a high level design concept and a long list of ever changing requirements due to the fact that sales department had no clear direction as to what exactly the project was going to do or how they were going to bill the clients once they actually agreed to purchase the Ad space. In my personal opinion IT should have pushed back to have the requirements further articulated instead of forcing programmers to code blindly attempting to build such an ambiguous project.  Unfortunately, we had to suffer with this project for about 4 months when it should have only taken 1.5 to complete due to the constantly changing and unclear requirements. References  Clements, P., Kazman, R., & Klein, M. (2002). Evaluating Software Architectures. Westford, Massachusetts: Courier Westford. 

    Read the article

  • Observer pattern and violation of Single Principality Rule

    - by Devil Jin
    I have an applet which repaints itself once the text has changed Design 1: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet implements Listener{ private DynamicText text = null; public void init(){ text = new DynamicText("Welcome"); } public void paint(Graphics g){ g.drawString(text.getText(), 50, 30); } //implement Listener update() method public void update(){ repaint(); } } //DynamicText.java public class DynamicText implements Publisher{ // implements Publisher interface methods //notify listeners whenever text changes } Isn't this a violation of Single Responsibility Principle where my Applet not only acts as Applet but also has to do Listener job. Same way DynamicText class not only generates the dynamic text but updates the registered listeners. Design 2: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet{ private AppletListener appLstnr = null; public void init(){ appLstnr = new AppletListener(this); // applet stuff } } // AppletListener.java public class AppletListener implements Listener{ private Applet applet = null; public AppletListener(Applet applet){ this.applet = applet; } public void update(){ this.applet.repaint(); } } // DynamicText public class DynamicText{ private TextPublisher textPblshr = null; public DynamicText(TextPublisher txtPblshr){ this.textPblshr = txtPblshr; } // call textPblshr.notifyListeners whenever text changes } public class TextPublisher implments Publisher{ // implements publisher interface methods } Q1. Is design 1 a SPR violation? Q2. Is composition a better choice here to remove SPR violation as in design 2.

    Read the article

  • Observer pattern and violation of Single Responsibility Principle

    - by Devil Jin
    I have an applet which repaints itself once the text has changed Design 1: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet implements Listener{ private DynamicText text = null; public void init(){ text = new DynamicText("Welcome"); } public void paint(Graphics g){ g.drawString(text.getText(), 50, 30); } //implement Listener update() method public void update(){ repaint(); } } //DynamicText.java public class DynamicText implements Publisher{ // implements Publisher interface methods //notify listeners whenever text changes } Isn't this a violation of Single Responsibility Principle where my Applet not only acts as Applet but also has to do Listener job. Same way DynamicText class not only generates the dynamic text but updates the registered listeners. Design 2: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet{ private AppletListener appLstnr = null; public void init(){ appLstnr = new AppletListener(this); // applet stuff } } // AppletListener.java public class AppletListener implements Listener{ private Applet applet = null; public AppletListener(Applet applet){ this.applet = applet; } public void update(){ this.applet.repaint(); } } // DynamicText public class DynamicText{ private TextPublisher textPblshr = null; public DynamicText(TextPublisher txtPblshr){ this.textPblshr = txtPblshr; } // call textPblshr.notifyListeners whenever text changes } public class TextPublisher implments Publisher{ // implements publisher interface methods } Q1. Is design 1 a SPR violation? Q2. Is composition a better choice here to remove SPR violation as in design 2.

    Read the article

  • C#: How to resolve this circular dependency?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a circular dependency in my code, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. I am developing a game. A NPC has three components, responsible for thinking, sensing, and acting. These components need access to the NPC controller to get access to its model, but the controller needs these components to do anything. Thus, both take each other as arguments in their constructors. ISenseNPC sense = new DefaultSenseNPC(controller, worldQueryEngine); IThinkNPC think = new DefaultThinkNPC(sense); IActNPC act = new DefaultActNPC(combatEngine, sense, controller); controller = new ControllerNPC(act, think); (The above example has the parameter simplified a bit.) Without act and think, controller can't do anything, so I don't want to allow it to be initialized without them. The reverse is basically true as well. What should I do? ControllerNPC using think and act to update its state in the world: public class ControllerNPC { // ... public override void Update(long tick) { // ... act.UpdateFromBehavior(CurrentBehavior, tick); CurrentBehavior = think.TransitionState(CurrentBehavior, tick); } // ... } DefaultSenseNPC using controller to determine if it's colliding with anything: public class DefaultSenseNPC { // ... public bool IsCollidingWithTarget() { return worldQuery.IsColliding(controller, model.Target); } // ... }

    Read the article

  • When is lazy evaluation not useful?

    - by Cherian
    Delay execution is almost always a boon. But then there are cases when it’s a problem and you resort to “fetch” (in Nhibernate) to eager fetch it. Do you know practical situations when lazy evaluation can bite you back…?

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >