Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 54/133 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • MVC and conditional formatting - strategies for implementation

    - by Extrakun
    Right now I am writing a simulation program which output is formatted according to certain factors. The question is in a MVC architecture, where is the conditional formatting to be taken place? What are some strategies for implement this feature? FYI, The platform I am using is rather bare-bone in its GUI/front-end execution. To change color and formatting, it requires a change to the formatting state (much like OpenGL).

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • Should I use the Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM) pattern in Silverlight projects?

    - by Jon Galloway
    One challenge with Silverlight controls is that when properties are bound to code, they're no longer really editable in Blend. For example, if you've got a ListView that's populated from a data feed, there are no elements visible when you edit the control in Blend. I've heard that the MVVM pattern, originated by the WPF development community, can also help with keeping Silverlight controls "blendable". I'm still wrapping my head around it, but here are some explanations: http://www.nikhilk.net/Silverlight-ViewModel-Pattern.aspx http://mark-dot-net.blogspot.com/2008/11/model-view-view-model-mvvm-in.html http://www.ryankeeter.com/silverlight/silverlight-mvvm-pt-1-hello-world-style/ http://jonas.follesoe.no/YouCardRevisitedImplementingTheViewModelPattern.aspx One potential downside is that the pattern requires additional classes, although not necessarily more code (as shown by the second link above). Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • C# event or delegate or other solution?

    - by user295734
    Looking for some help or programmng ideas or mayeb there is some pattern that would help. Have an application that needs to fire alot of events sequentially, it could up to 100 or more unique events, it will be dynamic depeneding on the situation. Trying to find the best practice for doing this. My main idea right now is to create a list of objects iterate thru them, and fire each event. This seems wrong, or bad practice. Or maybe have one object and pass a list or params into one event? Or am I missing some feature in .NET that i could be using or implementing?

    Read the article

  • Events and references pattern

    - by serhio
    In a project I have the following relation between BO and GUI By e.g. G could represent a graphic with time lines, C a TimeLine curve, P - points of that curve and T the time that represents each point. Each GUI object is associated with the BO corresponding object. When T changes GUI P captures the Changed event and changes its location. So, when G should be modified, it modifies internally its objects and as result T changes, P moves and the GuiG visually changes, everything is OK. But there is an inconvenient of this architecture... BO should not be recreated, because this will breack the link between BO and GUIO. In particular, GUI P should always have the same reference of T. If in a business logic I do by e.g. P1.T = new T(this.T + 10) GUI_P1 will not move anymore, because it wait an event from the reference of former P1.T object, that does not belongs to P1 anymore. So the solution was to always modify the existing objects, not to recreate it. But here is an other inconvenient: performance. Say I have a ready newC object that should replace the older one. Instead of doing G1.C = newC I should do foreach T in foreach P in C replace with T from P from newC. Is there an other more optimal way to do it?

    Read the article

  • javascript: execute a bunch of asynchronous method with one callback

    - by Samuel Michelot
    I need to execute a bunch of asynchronous methods (client SQLite database), and call only one final callback. Of course, the ugly way is: execAll : function(callBack) { asynch1(function() { asynch2(function() { ... asynchN(function() { callBack(); }) }) }); } But I know there are better ways to do it. Intuitively I would detect when all call back has been called with a counter to call the final callback. I think this is a common design-pattern, so if someone could point me in the right direction... Thanks in advance !

    Read the article

  • HTML Submit button vs AJAX based Post (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by Graham
    I'm after some design advice. I'm working on an application with a fellow developer. I'm from the Webforms world and he's done a lot with jQuery and AJAX stuff. We're collaborating on a new ASP.MVC 1.0 app. He's done some pretty amazing stuff that I'm just getting my head around, and used some 3rd party tools etc. for datagrids etc. but... He rarely uses Submit buttons whereas I use them most of the time. He uses a button but then attaches Javascript to it that calls an MVC action which returns a JSON object. He then parses the object to update the datagrid. I'm not sure how he deals with server-side validation - I think he adds a message property to the JSON object. A sample scenario would be to "Save" a new record that then gets added to the gridview. The user doesn't see a postback as such, so he uses jQuery to disable the UI whilst the controller action is running. TBH, it looks pretty cool. However, the way I'd do it would be to use a Submit button to postback, let the ModelBinder populate a typed model class, parse that in my controller Action method, update the model (and apply any validation against the model), update it with the new record, then send it back to be rendered by the View. Unlike him, I don't return a JSON object, I let the View (and datagrid) bind to the new model data. Both solutions "work" but we're obviously taking the application down different paths so one of us has to re-work our code... and we don't mind whose has to be done. What I'd prefer though is that we adopt the "industry-standard" way of doing this. I'm unsure as to whether my WebForms background is influencing the fact that his way just "doesn't feel right", in that a "submit" is meant to submit data to the server. Any advice at all please - many thanks.

    Read the article

  • PHP: Best solution for links breaking in a mod_rewrite app

    - by psil
    I'm using mod rewrite to redirect all requests targeting non-existent files/directories to index.php?url=* This is surely the most common thing you do with mod_rewrite yet I have a problem: Naturally, if the page url is "mydomain.com/blog/view/1", the browser will look for images, stylesheets and relative links in the "virtual" directory "mydomain.com/blog/view/". Problem 1: Is using the base tag the best solution? I see that none of the PHP frameworks out there use the base tag, though. I'm currently having a regex replace all the relative links to point to the right path before output. Is that "okay"? Problem 2: It is possible that the server doesn't support mod_rewrite. However, all public files like images, stylesheets and the requests collector index.php are located in the directory /myapp/public. Normally mod_rewrite points all request to /public so it seems as if public was actually the root directory too all users. However if there is no mod_rewrite, I then have to point the users to /public from the root directory with a header() call. That means, however that all links are broken again because suddenly all images, etc. have to be called via /public/myimage.jpg Additional info: When there is no mod_rewrite the above request would look like this: mydomain.com/public/index.php/blog/view/1 What would be the best solutions for both problems?

    Read the article

  • [Delphi] How would you refactor this code?

    - by Al C
    This hypothetical example illustrates several problems I can't seem to get past, even though I keep trying!! ... Suppose the original code is a long event handler, coded in the UI, triggered when a user clicks a cell in a grid. Expressed as pseudocode it's: if Condition1=true then begin //loop through every cell in row, //if aCell/headerCellValue>1 then //color aCell red end else if Condition2=true then begin //do some other calculation adding cell and headerCell values, and //if some other product>2 then //color the whole row green end else show an error message I look at this and say "Ah, refactor to the strategy pattern! The code will be easier to understand, easier to debug, and easier to later extend!" I get that. And I can easily break the code into multiple procedures. The problem is ultimately scope related. Assume the pseudocode makes extensive use of grid properties, values displayed in cells, maybe even built-in grid methods. How do you move all that to another unit, without referencing the grid component in the UI--which would break all the "rules" about loose coupling that make OOP valuable? ... I'm really looking forward to responses. Thanks, as always -- Al C.

    Read the article

  • Lackadaisical One-to-One between Char and Byte Streams

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I expected to have a one-to-one correspondence between the character streams and byte streams in terms of how the classes are organized in their hierarchy. FilterReader and FilterWriter (character streams) correspond back to FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream (byte stream) classes. However I noticed few changes as - BufferedInputStream extends FilterInputStream, but BufferedReader does NOT extend FilterReader. BufferedOutputStream and PrintStream both extend FilterOutputStream, but BufferedWriter and PrintWriter does NOT extend FilterWriter. FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream are not abstract classes, but FilterReader and FilterWriter are. I am not sure if I am being too paranoid to point out such differences, but was just curious to know if there was design reasoning behind such decision.

    Read the article

  • what happens to running/blocked runnables when executorservice is shutdown()

    - by prmatta
    I posted a question about a thread pattern today, and almost everyone suggested that I look into the ExecutorService. While I was looking into the ExecutorService, I think I am missing something. What happens if the service has a running or blocked threads, and someone calls ExecutorService.shutdown(). What happens to threads that are running or blocked? Does the ExecutorService wait for those threads to complete before it terminates? The reason I ask this is because a long time ago when I used to dabble in Java, they deprecated Thread.stop(), and I remember the right way of stopping a thread was to use sempahores and extend Thread when necessary: public void run () { while (!this.exit) { try { block(); //do something } catch (InterruptedException ie) { } } } public void stop () { this.exit = true; if (this.thread != null) { this.thread.interrupt(); this.thread = null; } } How does ExecutorService handle running threads?

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Facade controller, is it efficient?

    - by Berlioz
    Using a facade controller pattern in .net. It seems as if though it is not efficient BECAUSE, for every event that happens in a domain object(Sales, Register, Schedule, Car) it has to be subscribed to by the controller(use case controller) and then the controller in turn has to duplicate that same event to make it available for the presentation, so that the presentation can show it to the user. Does this make sense? Please comment!

    Read the article

  • Rails Full Engine using a Full Engine

    - by SirLenz0rlot
    I've got this full rails engine Foo with functionality X. I want to make another engine, engine Bar, that is pretty much the same, but override funcitonality x with y. (it basically does the same, but a few controller actions and views are differently implemented). (I might split this later in several mountable engines, but for now, this will be the setup: project Baz, using engine Bar, which uses engine Foo) I would like to know if there are any pitfalls. It doesn't seem like a pattern that is often used? Anybody else using this 'some sort of engine inheritance'?

    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

  • How to better design it ???

    - by Deepak
    public interface IBasePresenter { } public interface IJobViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public interface IActivityViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public class BaseView { public IBasePresenter Presenter { get; set; } } public class JobView : BaseView { public IJobViewPresenter JobViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IJobViewPresenter;} } } public class ActivityView : BaseView { public IActivityViewPresenter ActivityViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IActivityViewPresenter;} } } Lets assume that I need a IBasePresenter property on BaseView. Now this property is inherited by JobView and ActivityView but if I need reference to IJobViewPresenter object in these derived classes then I need to type cast IBasePresenter property to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityPresenter (which I want to avoid) or create JobViewPresenter and ActivityViewPresenter on derived classes (as shown above). I want to avoid type casting in derived classes and still have reference to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityViewPresenter and still have IBasePresenter in BaseView. Is there a way I can achieve it ?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Naming remote proxy classes

    - by Tobbe
    What are some good names for the client and server side classes that communicate over the network when implementing a remote proxy? The classes are often called stub and skelleton but I don't find those names very "intention revealing". Are there any other (better) alternatives?

    Read the article

  • "Circuit breaker" for net.msmq?

    - by Alex
    Hi, The Circuit Breaker pattern, from the book Release It!, protects a service from requests while it is failing (or recovering). The net.msmq binding used with transactions give us nice retry and poison message capabilities. But I am missing the implementation of such a "Circuit breaker" pattern. A service is put under even heavier load by retries while it is already in a failure condition (like DB connectivity issues causing loads of blocked threads etc.). Anyone knows about a behavior extension or similar that explicitly closes the service host when defined failure thresholds have been exceeded? Cheers, Alex

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • how to get access to private members of nested class?

    - by macias
    Background: I have enclosed (parent) class E with nested class N with several instances of N in E. In the enclosed (parent) class I am doing some calculations and I am setting the values for each instance of nested class. Something like this: n1.field1 = ...; n1.field2 = ...; n1.field3 = ...; n2.field1 = ...; ... It is one big eval method (in parent class). My intention is -- since all calculations are in parent class (they cannot be done per nested instance because it would make code more complicated) -- make the setters only available to parent class and getters public. And now there is a problem: when I make the setters private, parent class cannot acces them when I make them public, everybody can change the values and C# does not have friend concept I cannot pass values in constructor because lazy evaluation mechanism is used (so the instances have to be created when referencing them -- I create all objects and the calculation is triggered on demand) I am stuck -- how to do this (limit access up to parent class, no more, no less)? I suspect I'll get answer-question first -- "but why you don't split the evaluation per each field" -- so I answer this by example: how do you calculate min and max value of a collection? In a fast way? The answer is -- in one pass. This is why I have one eval function which does calculations and sets all fields at once.

    Read the article

  • dynamical binding or switch/case?

    - by kingkai
    A scene like this: I've different of objects do the similar operation as respective func() implements. There're 2 kinds of solution for func_manager() to call func() according to different objects Solution 1: Use virtual function character specified in c++. func_manager works differently accroding to different object point pass in. class Object{ virtual void func() = 0; } class Object_A : public Object{ void func() {}; } class Object_B : public Object{ void func() {}; } void func_manager(Object* a) { a->func(); } Solution 2: Use plain switch/case. func_manager works differently accroding to different type pass in typedef _type_t { TYPE_A, TYPE_B }type_t; void func_by_a() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_by_b() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_manager(type_t type) { switch(type){ case TYPE_A: func_by_a(); break; case TYPE_B: func_by_b(); default: break; } } My Question are 2: 1. at the view point of DESIGN PATTERN, which one is better? 2. at the view point of RUNTIME EFFCIENCE, which one is better? Especailly as the kinds of Object increases, may be up to 10-15 total, which one's overhead oversteps the other? I don't know how switch/case implements innerly, just a bunch of if/else? Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • Perls Of Wisdom For a .Net Programmer [closed]

    - by DeanMc
    Hi Guys, I like to think that recently I have moved from complete beginner to beginner. It has been a hard road and one on which I took many wrong turns. Very rarely in any profession is there a place where so many rock stars gather, this is something I would like to take advantage of. What I would like to ask is what are your perls of wisdom for a .net programmer. They can be anything you feel of value, a concept, a book, a process that should be followed, anything of that nature, it doesn't have to be .net specific just contextual. Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >