Search Results

Search found 3027 results on 122 pages for 'explicit cast'.

Page 55/122 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

• The next next C++ [closed]

  - by Roger Pate

  It's entirely too early for speculation on what C++ will be like after C++0x, but idle hands make for wild predictions. What features would you find useful and why? Is there anything in another language that would fit nicely into the state of C++ after 0x? What should be considered for the next TC and TR? (Mostly TR, as the TC would depend more on what actually becomes the next standard.) Export was removed, rather than merely deprecated, in 0x. (It remains a keyword.) What other features carry so much baggage to also be more harmful than helpful? ISO Standards' process I'm not involved in the C++ committee, but it's also a mystery, unfortunately, to most programmers using C++. A few things worth keeping in mind: There will be 10 years between standards, barring extremely exceptional circumstances. The standard can get "bug fixes" in the form of a Technical Corrigendum. This happened to C++98 with TC1, named C++03. It fixed "simple" issues such as making the explicit guarantee that std::vector stores items contiguously, which was always intended. The committee can issue reports which can add to the language. This happened to C++98/03 with TR1 in 2005, which introduced the std::tr1 namespace.

  Read the article

• The JavaServer Faces 2.2 viewAction Component

  - by Janice J. Heiss

  Life just got easier for users of JavaServer Faces. In a new article, now up on otn/java, titled “New JavaServer Faces 2.2 Feature: The viewAction Component,” Tom McGinn, Oracle’s Principal Curriculum Developer for Oracle Server Technologies, explores the advantages offered by the JavaServer Faces 2.2 view action feature, which, according to McGinn, “simplifies the process for performing conditional checks on initial and postback requests, enables control over which phase of the lifecycle an action is performed in, and enables both implicit and declarative navigation.”As McGinn observes: “A view action operates like a button command (UICommand) component. By default, it is executed during the Invoke Application phase in response to an initial request. However, as you'll see, view actions can be invoked during any phase of the lifecycle and, optionally, during postback, making view actions well suited to performing preview checks.”McGinn explains that the JavaServer Faces 2.2 view action feature offers several advantages over the previous method of performing evaluations before a page is rendered:   * View actions can be triggered early on, before a full component tree is built, resulting in a lighter weight call.   * View action timing can be controlled.   * View actions can be used in the same context as the GET request.   * View actions support both implicit and explicit navigation.   * View actions support both non-faces (initial) and faces (postback) requests.Read the complete article here.

  Read the article

• Interfaces and Virtuals Everywhere????

  - by David V. Corbin

  First a disclaimer; this post is about micro-optimization of C# programs and does not apply to most common scenarios - but when it does, it is important to know. Many developers are in the habit of declaring member virtual to allow for future expansion or using interface based designs1. Few of these developers think about what the runtime performance impact of this decision is. A simple test will show that this decision can have a serious impact. For our purposes, we used a simple loop to time the execution of 1 billion calls to both non-virtual and virtual implementations of a method that took no parameters and had a void return type: Direct Call:     1.5uS Virtual Call:   13.0uS The overhead of the call increased by nearly an order of magnitude! Once again, it is important to realize that if the method does anything of significance then this ratio drops quite quickly. If the method does just 1mS of work, then the differential only accounts for a 1% decrease in performance. Additionally the method in question must be called thousands of times in order to produce a meaqsurable impact at the application level. Yet let us consider a situation such as the per-pixel processing of a graphics processing application. Here we may have a method which is called millions of times and even the slightest increase in overhead can have significant ramification. In this case using either explicit virtuals or interface based constructs is likely to be a mistake. In conclusion, good design principles should always be the driving force behind descisions such as these; but remember that these decisions do not come for free.   1) When a concrete class member implements an interface it does not need to be explicitly marked as virtual (unless, of course, it is to be overriden in a derived concerete class). Nevertheless, when accessed via the interface it behaves exactly as if it had been marked as virtual.

  Read the article

• When do domain concepts become application constructs?

  - by Noren

  I recently posted a question regarding recovering a DDD architecture that became an anemic domain model into a multitier architecture and this question is a follow-on of sorts. My question is when do domain concepts become application constructs. My application is a local client C# 4/WPF with the following architecture: Presentation Layer Views ViewModels Business Layer ??? Domain Layer Classes that take the POCOs with primitive types and create domain concepts (e.g. image, layer, etc) Sanity checks values (e.g. image width 0) Interfaces for DTOs Interface for a repository that abstracts the filesystem Data Access Layer Classes that parse the proprietary binary files into POCOs with primitive types by explicit knowledge of the file format Implementation of domain DTOs Implementation of domain repository class Local Filesystem Proprietary binary files When does the MyImageType domain class with Int32 width, height, and Int32[] pixels become a System.Windows.Media.ImageDrawing? If I put it in the domain layer, it seems like implemenation details are being leaked (what if I didn't want to use WPF?). If I put it in the presentation layer, it seems like it's doing too much. If I create a business layer, it seems like it would be doing too little since there are few "rules" given the CRUD nature of the application. I think all of my reading has lead to analysis paralysis, so I thought fresh eyes might lend some perspective.

  Read the article

• Why the R# Method Group Refactoring is Evil

  - by Liam McLennan

  The refactoring I’m talking about is recommended by resharper when it sees a lambda that consists entirely of a method call that is passed the object that is the parameter to the lambda. Here is an example: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(n => IsEven(n)); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } When resharper gets to n => IsEven(n) it underlines the lambda with a green squiggly telling me that the code can be replaced with a method group. If I apply the refactoring the code becomes: public class IWishIWasAScriptingLanguage { public void SoIWouldntNeedAllThisJunk() { (new List<int> {1, 2, 3, 4}).Select(IsEven); } private bool IsEven(int number) { return number%2 == 0; } } The method group syntax implies that the lambda’s parameter is the same as the IsEven method’s parameter. So a readable, explicit syntax has been replaced with an obfuscated, implicit syntax. That is why the method group refactoring is evil.

  Read the article

• TDD: Write a separate test for object initialization or relying on other tests exercising it

  - by DXM

  This seems to be the common pattern that's emerging in some of the tests I've worked on lately. We have a class, and quite often this is legacy code whose design can't be easily altered, which has a bunch of member variables. There's some kind of "Initialize" or "Load" function which would put an object into a valid state. Only after it is initialized/loaded, are the members in the proper state so that other methods can be exercised. So when we start writing tests, first test is "TestLoad" and all we put in there is exercising initialization logic. Then we might add one (or few) TestLoadFailureXXX tests and those are definitely valuable. Then we start writing tests to verify other behaviors but all of them require the object to be loaded. So they all start by running exactly the same code as "TestLoad". So my question: Is TestLoad even necessary? Do you take it and let other tests simply exercise the loading? Or leave it so things are more explicit? I know that each unit test function should have no (or as little as possible) overlap with other test functions, but it seems like in cases of loading, this is unavoidable. And whether we like it or not, if something in the loading code breaks, we will end up with a whole test suite of failures. Is there another approach that I might be missing here? Thank you for the responses. It definitely makes sense that you want to see "InitializationTest" and if that fails you know where to start looking. In case it matters, this question is mostly about C++ and we use CppUnit framework. And now, thanks to sleske, I'll be constantly wishing that CppUnit supported test dependencies. Might have to hack something in one of these days :)

  Read the article

• Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

  - by tylerl

  I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

  Read the article

• Master Data Management – A Foundation for Big Data Analysis

  - by Manouj Tahiliani

  While Master Data Management has crossed the proverbial chasm and is on its way to becoming mainstream, businesses are being hammered by a new megatrend called Big Data. Big Data is characterized by massive volumes, its high frequency, the variety of less structured data sources such as email, sensors, smart meters, social networks, and Weblogs, and the need to analyze vast amounts of data to determine value to improve upon management decisions. Businesses that have embraced MDM to get a single, enriched and unified view of Master data by resolving semantic discrepancies and augmenting the explicit master data information from within the enterprise with implicit data from outside the enterprise like social profiles will have a leg up in embracing Big Data solutions. This is especially true for large and medium-sized businesses in industries like Retail, Communications, Financial Services, etc that would find it very challenging to get comprehensive analytical coverage and derive long-term success without resolving the limitations of the heterogeneous topology that leads to disparate, fragmented and incomplete master data. For analytical success from Big Data or in other words ROI from Big Data Investments, businesses need to acquire, organize and analyze the deluge of data to make better decisions. There will need to be a coexistence of structured and unstructured data and to maintain a tight link between the two to extract maximum insights. MDM is the catalyst that helps maintain that tight linkage by providing an understanding about the identity, characteristics of Persons, Companies, Products, Suppliers, etc. associated with the Big Data and thereby help accelerate ROI. In my next post I will discuss about patterns for co-existing Big Data Solutions and MDM. Feel free to provide comments and thoughts on above as well as Integration or Architectural patterns.

  Read the article

• Execution plan warnings–All that glitters is not gold

  - by Dave Ballantyne

  In a previous post, I showed you the new execution plan warnings related to implicit and explicit warnings.  Pretty much as soon as i hit ’post’,  I noticed something rather odd happening. This statement : select top(10) SalesOrderHeader.SalesOrderID, SalesOrderNumberfrom Sales.SalesOrderHeaderjoin Sales.SalesOrderDetail on SalesOrderHeader.SalesOrderID = SalesOrderDetail.SalesOrderID   Throws the “Type conversion may affect cardinality estimation” warning.     Ive done no such conversion in my statement why would that be ?  Well, SalesOrderNumber is a computed column , “(isnull(N'SO'+CONVERT([nvarchar](23),[SalesOrderID],0),N'*** ERROR ***'))”,  so thats where the conversion is.   Wait!!! Am i saying that every type conversion will throw the warning ?  Thankfully, no.  It only appears for columns that are used in predicates ,even if the predicate / join condition is fine ,  and the column is indexed ( and/or , presumably has statistics).    Hopefully , this wont lead to to many wild goose chases, but is definitely something to bear in mind.  If you want to see this fixed then upvote my connect item here.

  Read the article

• Application Scope v's Static - Not Quite the same

  - by Duncan Mills

  An interesting question came up today which, innocent as it sounded, needed a second or two to consider. What's the difference between storing say a Map of reference information as a Static as opposed to storing the same map as an application scoped variable in JSF?  From the perspective of the web application itself there seems to be no functional difference, in both cases, the information is confined to the current JVM and potentially visible to your app code (note that Application Scope is not magically propagated across a cluster, you would need a separate instance on each VM). To my mind the primary consideration here is a matter of leakage. A static will be (potentially) visible to everything running within the same VM (OK this depends on which class-loader was used but let's keep this simple), and this includes your model code and indeed other web applications running in the same container. An Application Scoped object, in JSF terms, is much more ring-fenced and is only visible to the Web app itself, not other web apps running on the same server and not directly to the business model layer if that is running in the same VM. So given that I'm a big fan of coding applications to say what I mean, then using Application Scope appeals because it explicitly states how I expect the data to be used and a provides a more explicit statement about visibility and indeed dependency as I'd generally explicitly inject it where it is needed.  Alternative viewpoints / thoughts are, as ever, welcomed...

  Read the article

• Can I distribute a software with the following permission notice

  - by Parham

  I've recently written a piece of software (without any other contributors) for a company which I part own. I was wondering if I could distribute it with the following permission notice, which is a modified version of the MIT License. Are there any obvious risks if I do distribute with this licence and does it give me the right to reuse the code in other projects? Permission is hereby granted, to any person within CompanyName (the "Company") obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files, excluding any third party libraries (the "Software"), to deal with the Software, with limitations restricted to use, copy, modify and merge, the Software may not be published, distributed, sublicensed and/or sold without the explicit permission from AuthorName (the "Author"). This notice doesn't apply to sections of the Software where copyright is held by any persons other than the Author. The Author remains the owner of the Software and may deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

  Read the article

• Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

  - by Prog

  The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

  Read the article

• What is the value to checking in broken unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in broken unit tests? I will use a simple example. Case sensitivity. The current code is Case Sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests has found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• Tiled Editor: How is this Map Handling Collision?

  - by user2736286

  BrowserQuest map in question. From what I understand, with tiled, there are two main ways to specify collision: Create an object layer, and interpret the shapes in the engine as collision objects. Create a tiled layer, and make all tiles in the layer have a collision property, and interpret all tiles in the layer as collision objects. I'm using BrowserQuest as a big source of inspiration for my project, and I want to know how they handled collision on the level editing side. I've checked through all their layers, expecting an object layer to be handling cliff collision like: But there are no such object layers to be found. Furthermore, the tile layers containing the tiles for such cliffs have no properties at all, meaning that they didn't just specify "collision" for such tile layers. I especially need to know how they handled less rectangular shapes like: I could imagine that they are not using explicit collision layers, but instead determining collision in the actual engine, based off the presence of specific tile layer sprites. Only because BrowserQuest has whole-tile movement, and it wouldn't look too odd if a small apple, taking up only a fraction of the tile size, prevents movement over that entire tile. But I'm creating a game with more precise movement, so collision has to be tight to the apple, and I really want to know how BrowserQuest approached collision defining. If anyone knowledgeable with Tiled could take a quick look at the map, I'd appreciate it! I'm tearing my hair out here :). Thanks

  Read the article

• Weird 302 Redirects in Windows Azure

  - by Your DisplayName here!

  In IdentityServer I don’t use Forms Authentication but the session facility from WIF. That also means that I implemented my own redirect logic to a login page when needed. To achieve that I turned off the built-in authentication (authenticationMode="none") and added an Application_EndRequest handler that checks for 401s and does the redirect to my sign in route. The redirect only happens for web pages and not for web services. This all works fine in local IIS – but in the Azure Compute Emulator and Windows Azure many of my tests are failing and I suddenly see 302 status codes where I expected 401s (the web service calls). After some debugging kung-fu and enabling FREB I found out, that there is still the Forms Authentication module in effect turning 401s into 302s. My EndRequest handler never sees a 401 (despite turning forms auth off in config)! Not sure what’s going on (I suspect some inherited configuration that gets in my way here). Even if it shouldn’t be necessary, an explicit removal of the forms auth module from the module list fixed it, and I now have the same behavior in local IIS and Windows Azure. strange. <modules>   <remove name="FormsAuthentication" /> </modules> HTH Update: Brock ran into the same issue, and found the real reason. Read here.

  Read the article

• .htaccess rules to rewrite URLs to front end page?

  - by Dizzley

  I am adding a new application to my site at example.com/app. I want views at that URL to always open myapp.php. E.g. example.com/app -> example.com/app/myapp.php and example.com/app/ -> example.com/app/myapp.php What's the correct form of rewrite rules in the .htaccess file? I've got: <IfModule mod_rewrite.c> RewriteEngine On RewriteBase /app/ RewriteRule ^myapp\.php$ - [L] RewriteRule ^myapp.php$ - [L] RewriteRule . - [L] </IfModule> ...based on what the Wordpress front-end does. But all I see at example.com/app is a directory of files. :( (I put those rewrites at the top of my .htaccess file). Any ideas? Update What actually worked: RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/app(/.*)?$ [NC] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f RewriteRule . /app/myapp.php [L] This is good because: Explicit or implicit calls to app/myapp.php work. example.com/app redirects to app/myapp.php example.com/app/ redirects to app/myapp.php example.com/app/subfunction redirects to app/myapp.php All other calls to example.com/otherstuff are untouched. Item 4 is Wordpress-like Front Controller pattern behaviour. I think that rule RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/app.*$ [NC] needs refining as it allows /app-oh-my-goodness etc. through too. Thanks for the answers.

  Read the article

• Can't install Linux drivers for ASUS N-13 wireless adapter

  - by jcc

  I have a USB N13 wireless Adapter with install CD-- For Windows. I downloaded drivers from ASUS FOR N13 for Linux. Disregard install CD that came with adapter; it's for Windows. I then downloaded Windows Wireless driver install program app from Software Center in Ubuntu 12.10. The problem is me. I am newbie with all things linux; software sources, G Debi, default archive manager, synaptic package manager and the Terminal. The downloaded driver file is a .zip file. I managed to extract it to a tar.gz file and then to open it to the contained files. When I use the Windows Wireless driver program it ends up telling me there is no .inf file and goes no further. It wants to install .inf file but I don't even see one in all the files. Can someone please help me . I think you can tell by my wording I don't have a clue. I hope this is'nt too chatty. I've tried to be explicit and to the point. Thank you. Oh, this is on an ASUS LAPTOP K53E. I've looked all over Ask Ubuntu and finally found some questions even on the N13 but they didn't help; still some differences in the exact problem.

  Read the article

• Weird behavior when using pointers [migrated]

  - by Kinan Al Sarmini

  When I run this code on MS VS C++ 2010: #include <iostream> int main() { const int a = 10; const int *b = &a; int *c = (int *)b; *c = 10000; std::cout << c << " " << &a << std::endl; std::cout << *c << " " << a << " " << *(&a) << std::endl; return 0; } The output is: 0037F784 0037F784 10000 10 10 The motivation for writing that code was this sentence from "The C++ Programming Language" by Stroustrup: "It is possible to explicitly remove the restrictions on a pointer to const by explicit type conversion". I know that trying to modify a constant is conceptually wrong, but I find this result quite weird. Can anyone explain the reason behind it?

  Read the article

• What is the value of checking in failing unit tests?

  - by Adam W.

  While there are ways of keeping unit tests from being executed, what is the value of checking in failing unit tests? I will use a simple example: Case Sensitivity. The current code is case sensitive. A valid input into the method is "Cat" and it would return an enum of Animal.Cat. However, the desired functionality of the method should not be case sensitive. So if the method described was passed "cat" it could possibly return something like Animal.Null instead of Animal.Cat and the unit test would fail. Though a simple code change would make this work, a more complex issue may take weeks to fix, but identifying the bug with a unit test could be a less complex task. The application currently being analyzed has 4 years of code that "works". However, recent discussions regarding unit tests have found flaws in the code. Some just need explicit implementation documentation (ex. case sensitive or not), or code that does not execute the bug based on how it is currently called. But unit tests can be created executing specific scenarios that will cause the bug to be seen and are valid inputs. What is the value of checking in unit tests that exercise the bug until someone can get around to fixing the code? Should this unit test be flagged with ignore, priority, category etc, to determine whether a build was successful based on tests executed? Eventually the unit test should be created to execute the code once someone fixes it. On one hand it shows that identified bugs have not been fixed. On the other, there could be hundreds of failed unit tests showing up in the logs and weeding through the ones that should fail vs. failures due to a code check-in would be difficult to find.

  Read the article

• .NET vs Windows 8: Rematch!

  - by Simon Cooper

  So, although you will be able to use your existing .NET skills to develop Metro apps, it turns out Microsoft are limiting Visual Studio 2011 Express to Metro-only. From the Express website: Visual Studio 11 Express for Windows 8 provides tools for Metro style app development. To create desktop apps, you need to use Visual Studio 11 Professional, or higher. Oh dear. To develop any sort of non-Metro application, you will need to pay for at least VS Professional. I suspect Microsoft (or at least, certain groups within Microsoft) have a very explicit strategy in mind. By making VS Express Metro-only, developers who don't want to pay for Professional will be forced to make their simple one-shot or open-source application in Metro. This increases the number of applications available for Windows 8 and Windows mobile devices, which in turn make those platforms more attractive for consumers. When you use the free VS 11 Express, instead of paying Microsoft, you provide them a service by making applications for Metro, which in turn makes Microsoft's mobile offering more attractive to consumers, increasing their market share. Of course, it remains to be seen if developers forced to jump onto the Metro bandwagon will simply jump ship to Android or iOS instead. At least, that's what I think is going on. With Microsoft, who really knows?

  Read the article

• What term is used to describe running frequent batch jobs to emulate near real time

  - by Steven Tolkin

  Suppose users of application A want to see the data updated by application B as frequently as possible. Unfortunately app A or app B cannot use message queues, and they cannot share a database. So app B writes a file, and a batch job periodically checks to see if the file is there, and if load loads it into app A. Is there a name for this concept? A very explicit and geeky description: "running very frequent batch jobs in a tight loop to emulate near real time". This concept is similar to "polling". However polling has the connotation of being very frequent, multiple times per second, whereas the most often you would run a batch job would be every few minutes. A related question -- what is the tightest loop that is reasonable. Is it 1 minute of 5 minutes or ...? Recall that the batch jobs are started by a batch job scheduler (e.g. Autosys, Control M, CA ESP, Spring Batch etc.) and so running a job too frequently would causes overhead and clutter.

  Read the article

• Having the same texture data in different ID3D11Texture2D

  - by bdmnd

  Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere - I'm rather new to DX. My question concerns conservation of resources - specifically textures in VRAM. I assume that upon returning from a call to CreateTexture2D, a copy of any textures data supplied has been copied elsewhere, likely VRAM. Does DX11 have any facility for having multiple ID3D11Texture2D objects which point to the same data? This might at first seem silly, but imagine a ID3D11Texture2D which is an array of textures. In one material, an artist has chosen to blend three identically sized maps, saved on disk as A.dds, B.dds, and C.dds. Then imagine they have another material which also uses three maps, but this time A.dds, B.dds, and D.dds. The shader code knows the diffuse texture is a texture array, and also has the number of layers baked (three in each case). I would essentially like to set up just two ID3D11Texture2D objects, one for each material, but I don't want to waste VRAM for two identical copies of A.dds and B.dds. I could use explicit texture arrays, of course, but this reduces the number of resources available to the shader and can complicate code somewhat more than would otherwise be needed.

  Read the article

• Resource Acquisition is Initialization in C#

  - by codeWithoutFear

  Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII) is a pattern I grew to love when working in C++.  It is perfectly suited for resource management such as matching all those pesky new's and delete's.  One of my goals was to limit the explicit deallocation statements I had to write.  Often these statements became victims of run-time control flow changes (i.e. exceptions, unhappy path) or development-time code refactoring. The beauty of RAII is realized by tying your resource creation (acquisition) to the construction (initialization) of a class instance.  Then bind the resource deallocation to the destruction of that instance.  That is well and good in a language with strong destructor semantics like C++, but languages like C# that run on garbage-collecting runtimes don't provide the same instance lifetime guarantees. Here is a class and sample that combines a few features of C# to provide an RAII-like solution: using System; namespace RAII { public class DisposableDelegate : IDisposable { private Action dispose; public DisposableDelegate(Action dispose) { if (dispose == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("dispose"); } this.dispose = dispose; } public void Dispose() { if (this.dispose != null) { Action d = this.dispose; this.dispose = null; d(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Console.Out.WriteLine("Some resource allocated here."); using (new DisposableDelegate(() => Console.Out.WriteLine("Resource deallocated here."))) { Console.Out.WriteLine("Resource used here."); throw new InvalidOperationException("Test for resource leaks."); } } } } The output of this program is: Some resource allocated here. Resource used here. Unhandled Exception: System.InvalidOperationException: Test for resource leaks. at RAII.Program.Main(String[] args) in c:\Dev\RAII\RAII\Program.cs:line 40 Resource deallocated here. Code without fear! --Don

  Read the article

• Command Query Separation

  - by Liam McLennan

  Command query separation is a strategy, proposed by Bertrand Meyer, that each of an object’s methods should be either a command or a query. A command is an operation that changes the state of a system, and a query is an operation that returns a value. This is not the same thing as CQRS, hence why I think that CQRS is poorly named. An Example of Command Query Separation Consider a system that models books and shelves. There is a rule that a shelf may not be removed if it holds any books. One way to implement the removal is to write a method Shelf.Remove() that internally checks to make sure that the shelf is empty before removing it. If the shelf is not empty then it is not removed and an error is returned. To implement this feature following the principle of command query separation would require two methods, one to query the shelf and determine if it is empty and a second method to remove the shelf. Separating the query from the command makes the shelf class simpler to use because the state change is clear and explicit.

  Read the article

• JiglibX addition to existing project questions

  - by SomeXnaChump

  Got a very simple existing project, that basically contains a lot of cubes. Now I am wanting to add a physics system to it and JiglibX seemed like the simplest one with some tutorials out there. My main problem is that the physics don't seem to be working how I imagined, I expected my tower of cubes to come crashing down, but they dont seem to do anything. I think my problem is that my cubes do not inherit DrawableGameComponent, they are managed by a world object that will update and render them. So they are at no point put into the games component list. I am not sure if this means that JiglibX will not be able to interact with them as in all the tutorials there are no explicit calls to add the Body objects to the physics system, so I can only presume that they are using a static/singleton under the hood which automatically hooks in all things, or they use the game objects component list somehow. I also noticed that in alot of the tutorials they use the following when setting up the physics system: float timeStep = (float)gameTime.ElapsedGameTime.Ticks / TimeSpan.TicksPerSecond; PhysicsSystem.CurrentPhysicsSystem.Integrate(timeStep); Would it not be better to keep a local instance of the created PhysicsSystem object and just call myPhysicsSystem.Integrate(timeStep)?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >