Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

Page 57/170 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

  • Does overloading Grails static 'mapping' property to bolt on database objects violate DRY?

    - by mikesalera
    Does Grails static 'mapping' property in Domain classes violate DRY? Let's take a look at the canonical domain class: class Book {      Long id      String title      String isbn      Date published      Author author      static mapping = {             id generator:'hilo', params:[table:'hi_value',column:'next_value',max_lo:100]      } } or: class Book { ...         static mapping = {             id( generator:'sequence', params:[sequence_name: "book_seq"] )     } } And let us say, continuing this thought, that I have my Grails application working with HSQLDB or MySQL, but the IT department says I must use a commercial software package (written by a large corp in Redwood Shores, Calif.). Does this change make my web application nobbled in development and test environments? MySQL supports autoincrement on a primary key column but does support sequence objects, for example. Is there a cleaner way to implement this sort of 'only when in production mode' without loading up the domain class?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • How would you organize this Javascript?

    - by Anurag
    How do you usually organize complex web applications that are extremely rich on the client side. I have created a contrived example to indicate the kind of mess it's easy to get into if things are not managed well for big apps. Feel free to modify/extend this example as you wish - http://jsfiddle.net/NHyLC/1/ The example basically mirrors part of the comment posting on SO, and follows the following rules: Must have 15 characters minimum, after multiple spaces are trimmed out to one. If Add Comment is clicked, but the size is less than 15 after removing multiple spaces, then show a popup with the error. Indicate amount of characters remaining and summarize with color coding. Gray indicates a small comment, brown indicates a medium comment, orange a large comment, and red a comment overflow. One comment can only be submitted every 15 seconds. If comment is submitted too soon, show a popup with appropriate error message. A couple of issues I noticed with this example. This should ideally be a widget or some sort of packaged functionality. Things like a comment per 15 seconds, and minimum 15 character comment belong to some application wide policies rather than being embedded inside each widget. Too many hard-coded values. No code organization. Model, Views, Controllers are all bundled together. Not that MVC is the only approach for organizing rich client side web applications, but there is none in this example. How would you go about cleaning this up? Applying a little MVC/MVP along the way? Here's some of the relevant functions, but it will make more sense if you saw the entire code on jsfiddle: /** * Handle comment change. * Update character count. * Indicate progress */ function handleCommentUpdate(comment) { var status = $('.comment-status'); status.text(getStatusText(comment)); status.removeClass('mild spicy hot sizzling'); status.addClass(getStatusClass(comment)); } /** * Is the comment valid for submission */ function commentSubmittable(comment) { var notTooSoon = !isTooSoon(); var notEmpty = !isEmpty(comment); var hasEnoughCharacters = !isTooShort(comment); return notTooSoon && notEmpty && hasEnoughCharacters; } // submit comment $('.add-comment').click(function() { var comment = $('.comment-box').val(); // submit comment, fake ajax call if(commentSubmittable(comment)) { .. } // show a popup if comment is mostly spaces if(isTooShort(comment)) { if(comment.length < 15) { // blink status message } else { popup("Comment must be at least 15 characters in length."); } } // show a popup is comment submitted too soon else if(isTooSoon()) { popup("Only 1 comment allowed per 15 seconds."); } });

    Read the article

  • Maintain List of Active Users for Web

    - by Bryan Marble
    Problem Statement - Would like to know if particular web app user is active (i.e. logged in and using site) and be able to query for list of active users or determine a user's activity status. Constraints - Doesn't need to be exact (i.e. if a user was active within a certain timeframe, that's ok to say that they're active even if they've closed their browser). I feel like there should be a design pattern for this type of problem but haven't been able to find anything here or elsewhere on the web. Approaches I'm considering: Maintain a table that is updated any time a user performs an action (or some subset of actions). Would then query for users that have performed an action within some threshold of time. Try to monitor session information and maintain a table that lists logged in users and times out after a certain period of time. Some other more standard way of doing this? How would you approach this problem (again, from a design pattern perspective)? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Singleton class design in C#, are these two classes equivalent?

    - by Oskar
    I was reading up on singleton class design in C# on this great resource and decided to go with alternative 4: public sealed class Singleton1 { static readonly Singleton1 _instance = new Singleton1(); static Singleton1() { } Singleton1() { } public static Singleton1 Instance { get { return _instance; } } } Now I wonder if this can be rewritten using auto properties like this? public sealed class Singleton2 { static Singleton2() { Instance = new Singleton2(); } Singleton2() { } public static Singleton2 Instance { get; private set; } } If its only a matter of readability I definitely prefer the second version, but I want to get it right.

    Read the article

  • when to use the abstract factory pattern?

    - by hguser
    Hi: I want to know when we need to use the abstract factory pattern. Here is an example,I want to know if it is necessary. The UML THe above is the abstract factory pattern, it is recommended by my classmate. THe following is myown implemention. I do not think it is necessary to use the pattern. And the following is some core codes: package net; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util.Properties; public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { DaoRepository dr=new DaoRepository(); AbstractDao dao=dr.findDao("sql"); dao.insert(); } } class DaoRepository { Map<String, AbstractDao> daoMap=new HashMap<String, AbstractDao>(); public DaoRepository () throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { Properties p=new Properties(); p.load(DaoRepository.class.getResourceAsStream("Test.properties")); initDaos(p); } public void initDaos(Properties p) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { String[] daoarray=p.getProperty("dao").split(","); for(String dao:daoarray) { AbstractDao ad=(AbstractDao)Class.forName(dao).newInstance(); daoMap.put(ad.getID(),ad); } } public AbstractDao findDao(String id) {return daoMap.get(id);} } abstract class AbstractDao { public abstract String getID(); public abstract void insert(); public abstract void update(); } class SqlDao extends AbstractDao { public SqlDao() {} public String getID() {return "sql";} public void insert() {System.out.println("sql insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("sql update");} } class AccessDao extends AbstractDao { public AccessDao() {} public String getID() {return "access";} public void insert() {System.out.println("access insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("access update");} } And the content of the Test.properties is just one line: dao=net.SqlDao,net.SqlDao So any ont can tell me if this suitation is necessary?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for DAO pattern ?

    - by Tony
    I've seen a lot of codes use a service-dao pattern , I don't know the origin of this pattern . It force the front layer call service , then delegates some of the service task to dao. I want to ask : Does DAO layer do purely data access related task ? What about exception encapsulation ? Is there other pattern can be used to replace this ?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Pattern clarification

    - by nettguy
    My understanding of Factory Method Pattern is (Correct me if i am wrong) Factory Method Pattern "Factory Method allow the client to delegates the product creation (Instance Creation) to the subclass". There are two situation in which we can go for creating Factory Method pattern. (i) When the client is restricted to the product (Instance) creation. (ii) There are multiple products available.But a decision to be made which product instance need to be returned. If you want to create Abstract Method pattern You need to have abstract product Concrete Product Factory Method to return the appropriate product. Example : public enum ORMChoice { L2SQL, EFM, LS, Sonic } //Abstract Product public interface IProduct { void ProductTaken(); } //Concrete Product public class LinqtoSql : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:LinqtoSql"); } } //concrete product public class Subsonic : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:Subsonic"); } } //concrete product public class EntityFramework : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken:EntityFramework"); } } //concrete product public class LightSpeed : IProduct { public void ProductTaken() { Console.WriteLine("OR Mapping Taken :LightSpeed"); } } public class Creator { //Factory Method public IProduct ReturnORTool(ORMChoice choice) { switch (choice) { case ORMChoice.EFM:return new EntityFramework(); break; case ORMChoice.L2SQL:return new LinqtoSql(); break; case ORMChoice.LS:return new LightSpeed(); break; case ORMChoice.Sonic:return new Subsonic(); break; default: return null; } } } **Client** Button_Click() { Creator c = new Creator(); IProduct p = c.ReturnORTool(ORMChoice.L2SQL); p.ProductTaken(); } Is my understanding of Factory Method is correct?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring a C# derived class with method dependancies

    - by drelihan
    Hi Folks, I want to get your opinion on this. I have a class which is derived from a base class. I don't have control over the code in the base class and it is critical to the system that I derive from it. In my class I inherite two methods that are critical to the system and are used in pretty much every function, many times. I intend to refactor this derived class and extract some classes from it - this won't be a problem. What I'm not sure about is, is it worth extracting class if I have to constantly make call backs to my main class to access the two methods (or public wrappers to the methods)??? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Design Question on when to save

    - by Ben
    Hi, I was just after peoples opinion on when the best time to save an object (or collection of objects) is. I appreciate that it can be completely dependent on the situation that you are in but here is my situation. I have a collection of objects "MyCollection" in a grid. You can open each object "MyObject" in an editor dialogue by double clicking on the grid. Selecting "Cancel" on the dialogue will back out any changes you have made, but should selecting "ok" commit those changes back to the database, or should they commit the changes on that object back to the collection and have a save method that iterates through the collection and saves all changed objects? If i have an object "MyParentObject", that contains a collection of childen "MyChildObjectCollection", none of the changes made to each "MyChildObject" would be commited to the database until the "MyParentObject" was saved - this makes sense. However in my current situation, none of the objects in the collection are linked, therefore should the "Ok" on the dialogue commit the changes to the database? Appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Design question what pattern to use

    - by rahul
    Problem Description: We have a requirement of storing the snapshot of an entity temporarily in the database untill a certain period of time untill all the processes to approve the data are completed. Once all approvals are completed the data shall be permanantly persisted into the actual table. Example: 1) Consider an entity called "User". One way to create the user is through the "Create Account Process". 2) The "Create Account Process" shall capture all the information of the User and store it in a temporary table in the database. 3) The data shall be used by the "Account Approval Process" to run its verification process. 4. After all the verification is completed successfully, the User data shall be persisted to the actual table. Question: Where to store the user data entered during "Create Account Process". Additionally, User data should be editable till the verification process is complete.

    Read the article

  • c# Attribute Question

    - by Petoj
    Well i need some help here i don't know how to solve this problem. the function of the attribute is to determine if the function can be run... So what i need is the following: The consumer of the attribute should be able to determine if it can be executed. The owner of the attribute should be able to tell the consumer that now it can/can't be executed (like a event). It must have a simple syntax. This is what i have so far but it only implements point 1, 3. [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Method, AllowMultiple = false)] public class ExecuteMethodAttribute : Attribute { private Func<object, bool> canExecute; public Func<object, bool> CanExecute { get { return canExecute; } } public ExecuteMethodAttribute() { } public ExecuteMethodAttribute(Func<object, bool> canExecute) { this.canExecute = canExecute; } }

    Read the article

  • Representing game states in Tic Tac Toe

    - by dacman
    The goal of the assignment that I'm currently working on for my Data Structures class is to create a of Quantum Tic Tac Toe with an AI that plays to win. Currently, I'm having a bit of trouble finding the most efficient way to represent states. Overview of current Structure: AbstractGame Has and manages AbstractPlayers (game.nextPlayer() returns next player by int ID) Has and intializes AbstractBoard at the beginning of the game Has a GameTree (Complete if called in initialization, incomplete otherwise) AbstractBoard Has a State, a Dimension, and a Parent Game Is a mediator between Player and State, (Translates States from collections of rows to a Point representation Is a StateConsumer AbstractPlayer Is a State Producer Has a ConcreteEvaluationStrategy to evaluate the current board StateTransveralPool Precomputes possible transversals of "3-states". Stores them in a HashMap, where the Set contains nextStates for a given "3-state" State Contains 3 Sets -- a Set of X-Moves, O-Moves, and the Board Each Integer in the set is a Row. These Integer values can be used to get the next row-state from the StateTransversalPool SO, the principle is Each row can be represented by the binary numbers 000-111, where 0 implies an open space and 1 implies a closed space. So, for an incomplete TTT board: From the Set<Integer> board perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an open space, and 0 is a closed space From the Set<Integer> xMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 101 OO_ R2 might be: 000 X_X R3 might be: 101, where 1 is an X and 0 is not From the Set<Integer> oMoves perspective: X_X R1 might be: 000 OO_ R2 might be: 110 X_X R3 might be: 000, where 1 is an O and 0 is not Then we see that x{R1,R2,R3} & o{R1,R2,R3} = board{R1,R2,R3} The problem is quickly generating next states for the GameTree. If I have player Max (x) with board{R1,R2,R3}, then getting the next row-states for R1, R2, and R3 is simple.. Set<Integer> R1nextStates = StateTransversalPool.get(R1); The problem is that I have to combine each one of those states with R1 and R2. Is there a better data structure besides Set that I could use? Is there a more efficient approach in general? I've also found Point<-State mediation cumbersome. Is there another approach that I could try there? Thanks! Here is the code for my ConcretePlayer class. It might help explain how players produce new states via moves, using the StateProducer (which might need to become StateFactory or StateBuilder). public class ConcretePlayerGeneric extends AbstractPlayer { @Override public BinaryState makeMove() { // Given a move and the current state, produce a new state Point playerMove = super.strategy.evaluate(this); BinaryState currentState = super.getInGame().getBoard().getState(); return StateProducer.getState(this, playerMove, currentState); } } EDIT: I'm starting with normal TTT and moving to Quantum TTT. Given the framework, it should be as simple as creating several new Concrete classes and tweaking some things.

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Implementation

    - by cedar715
    I was going through the 'Factory method' pages in SO and had come across this link. And this comment. The example looked as a variant and thought to implement in its original way: to defer instantiation to subclasses... Here is my attempt. Does the following code implements the Factory pattern of the example specified in the link? Please validate and suggest if this has to undergo any re-factoring. public class ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl implements ScheduleTypeFactory { @Override public IScheduleItem createLinearScheduleItem() { return new LinearScheduleItem(); } @Override public IScheduleItem createVODScheduleItem() { return new VODScheduleItem(); } } public class UseScheduleTypeFactory { public enum ScheduleTypeEnum { CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID, BroadbandScheduleTypeID, LinearCableScheduleTypeID, MobileLinearScheduleTypeID } public static IScheduleItem getScheduleItem(ScheduleTypeEnum scheduleType) { IScheduleItem scheduleItem = null; ScheduleTypeFactory scheduleTypeFactory = new ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl(); switch (scheduleType) { case CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case BroadbandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case LinearCableScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; case MobileLinearScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; default: break; } return scheduleItem; } }

    Read the article

  • Validation with State Pattern for Multi-Page Forms in ASP.NET

    - by philrabin
    I'm trying to implement the state pattern for a multi-page registration form. The data on each page will be accumulated and stored in a session object. Should validation (including service layer calls to the DB) occur on the page level or inside each state class? In other words, should the concrete implementation of IState be concerned with the validation or should it be given a fully populated and valid object? See "EmptyFormState" class below: namespace Example { public class Registrar { private readonly IState formEmptyState; private readonly IState baseInformationComplete; public RegistrarSessionData RegistrarSessionData { get; set;} public Registrar() { RegistrarSessionData = new RegistrarSessionData(); formEmptyState = new EmptyFormState(this); baseInformationComplete = new BasicInfoCompleteState(this); State = formEmptyState; } public IState State { get; set; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { State.SubmitData(data); } public void ProceedToNextStep() { State.ProceedToNextStep(); } } //actual data stored in the session //to be populated by page public class RegistrarSessionData { public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } //will include values of all 4 forms } //State Interface public interface IState { void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data); void ProceedToNextStep(); } //Concrete implementation of IState //Beginning state - no data public class EmptyFormState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public EmptyFormState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //Should Validation occur here? //Should each state object contain a validation class? (IValidator ?) //Should this throw an exception? } public void ProceedToNextStep() { registrar.State = new BasicInfoCompleteState(registrar); } } //Next step, will have 4 in total public class BasicInfoCompleteState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public BasicInfoCompleteState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //etc } public void ProceedToNextStep() { //etc } } }

    Read the article

  • Looking for a better design: A readonly in-memory cache mechanism

    - by Dylan Lin
    Hi all, I have a Category entity (class), which has zero or one parent Category and many child Categories -- it's a tree structure. The Category data is stored in a RDBMS, so for better performance, I want to load all categories and cache them in memory while launching the applicaiton. Our system can have plugins, and we allow the plugin authors to access the Category Tree, but they should not modify the cached items and the tree(I think a non-readonly design might cause some subtle bugs in this senario), only the system knows when and how to refresh the tree. Here are some demo codes: public interface ITreeNode<T> where T : ITreeNode<T> { // No setter T Parent { get; } IEnumerable<T> ChildNodes { get; } } // This class is generated by O/R Mapping tool (e.g. Entity Framework) public class Category : EntityObject { public string Name { get; set; } } // Because Category is not stateless, so I create a cleaner view class for Category. // And this class is the Node Type of the Category Tree public class CategoryView : ITreeNode<CategoryView> { public string Name { get; private set; } #region ITreeNode Memebers public CategoryView Parent { get; private set; } private List<CategoryView> _childNodes; public IEnumerable<CategoryView> ChildNodes { return _childNodes; } #endregion public static CategoryView CreateFrom(Category category) { // here I can set the CategoryView.Name property } } So far so good. However, I want to make ITreeNode interface reuseable, and for some other types, the tree should not be readonly. We are not able to do this with the above readonly ITreeNode, so I want the ITreeNode to be like this: public interface ITreeNode<T> { // has setter T Parent { get; set; } // use ICollection<T> instead of IEnumerable<T> ICollection<T> ChildNodes { get; } } But if we make the ITreeNode writable, then we cannot make the Category Tree readonly, it's not good. So I think if we can do like this: public interface ITreeNode<T> { T Parent { get; } IEnumerable<T> ChildNodes { get; } } public interface IWritableTreeNode<T> : ITreeNode<T> { new T Parent { get; set; } new ICollection<T> ChildNodes { get; } } Is this good or bad? Are there some better designs? Thanks a lot! :)

    Read the article

  • IoC, Containers, and NServiceBus confusion

    - by andy
    Hey guys, here's my setup Castle Windsor is my container NServiceBus is itself using it's own container internally, Spring by default I'm implementing the PubSub config. Ok, if I have my Bus.Publish happening within my IWantToRunAtStartup class, then everything is fine. As a test for example on Run() we can start a timer and it'll go into a Service style loop. However, what if I want to abstract NServiceBus from my app, and have my app go: new CustomPulisherClass().Notify(ISomeMessage msg); In this situation, how do I implement CustomPublisherClass. My confusion is coming from the fact that NServiceBus is already running as a Service, it's already been "Started". How to I get at the correct instance of the Bus object? cheers andy

    Read the article

  • What is the best testing pattern for checking that parameters are being used properly?

    - by Joseph
    I'm using Rhino Mocks to try to verify that when I call a certain method, that the method in turn will properly group items and then call another method. Something like this: //Arrange var bucketsOfFun = new BucketGame(); var balls = new List<IBall> { new Ball { Color = Color.Red }, new Ball { Color = Color.Blue }, new Ball { Color = Color.Yellow }, new Ball { Color = Color.Orange }, new Ball { Color = Color.Orange } }; //Act bucketsOfFun.HaveFunWithBucketsAndBalls(balls); //Assert ??? Here is where the trouble begins for me. My method is doing something like this: public void HaveFunWithBucketsAndBalls(IList<IBall> balls) { //group all the balls together according to color var blueBalls = GetBlueBalls(balls); var redBalls = GetRedBalls(balls); // you get the idea HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(blueBalls); HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(redBalls); // etc etc with all the different colors } public void HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls(IList<IBall> colorSpecificBalls) { //doing some stuff here that i don't care about //for the test i'm writing right now } What I want to assert is that each time I call HaveFunWithABucketOfBalls that I'm calling it with a group of 1 red ball, then 1 blue ball, then 1 yellow ball, then 2 orange balls. If I can assert that behavior then I can verify that the method is doing what I want it to do, which is grouping the balls properly. Any ideas of what the best testing pattern for this would be?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Pattern using Generics-C#

    - by nanda
    Just I am learning Generics.When i have an Abstract Method pattern like : //Abstract Product interface IPage { string pageType(); } //Concerete Product 1 class ResumePage : IPage { public string pageType() { return "Resume Page"; } } //Concrete Product 2 class SummaryPage : IPage { public string pageType() { return "SummaryPage"; } } //Fcatory Creator class FactoryCreator { public IPage CreateOnRequirement(int i) { if (i == 1) return new ResumePage(); else { return new SummaryPage(); } } } //Client/Consumer void Main() { FactoryCreator c = new FactoryCreator(); IPage p; p = c.CreateOnRequirement(1); Console.WriteLine("Page Type is {0}", p.pageType()); p = c.CreateOnRequirement(2); Console.WriteLine("Page Type is {0}", p.pageType()); Console.ReadLine(); } how to convert the code using generics?

    Read the article

  • Tracking the user function that threw the exception

    - by makerofthings7
    I've been given a large application with only one try..catch at the outer most level. This application also throws exceptions all the time, and is poorly documented. Is there any pattern I can implement that will tell me what user method is being called, the exception being thrown, and also the count of exceptions? I'm thinking of using a dictionary with reflection to get the needed information, but I'm not sure if this will work. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • How to design this class hierarchy?

    - by devoured elysium
    I have defined an Event class: Event and all the following classes inherit from Event: AEvent BEvent CEvent DEvent Now, with the info I gather from all these Event classes, I will make a chart. With AEvent and BEvent, I will generate points for that chart, while with CEvent and DEvent I will paint certain regions of the chart. Now, how should I signal this in my class hierarchy? Should I make AEvent and BEvent inherit from PointEvent while CEvent and DEvent inherit from RegionEvent, being that both RegionEvent and PointEvent inherit from Event? Should I add a field with an Enum to Event with 2 values, Point and Region, and each of the child classes set their value to it? Should I use some kind of pattern here? Which one? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • JFace Providers and MVC/MVP/etc.

    - by Alexey Romanov
    Where do the JFace providers belong in an MVP or MVC architecture? Or should Provider pattern be treated as a different way of View-Model separation? If so, is it the same as the ASP.NET Provider pattern? Is there an article on a proper design of JFace applications using Providers?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >