Search Results

Search found 13259 results on 531 pages for 'design'.

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 57/531 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

  • Database with "Open Schema" - Good or Bad Idea?

    - by Claudiu
    The co-founder of Reddit gave a presentation on issues they had while scaling to millions of users. A summary is available here. What surprised me is point 3: Instead, they keep a Thing Table and a Data Table. Everything in Reddit is a Thing: users, links, comments, subreddits, awards, etc. Things keep common attribute like up/down votes, a type, and creation date. The Data table has three columns: thing id, key, value. There’s a row for every attribute. There’s a row for title, url, author, spam votes, etc. When they add new features they didn’t have to worry about the database anymore. They didn’t have to add new tables for new things or worry about upgrades. This seems like a terrible idea to me, but it seems to have worked out for Reddit. Is it a good idea in general, though? Or is it a peculiarity of Reddit that happened to work out for them?

    Read the article

  • Parametrized Strategy Pattern

    - by ott
    I have several Java classes which implement the strategy pattern. Each class has variable number parameters of different types: interface Strategy { public data execute(data); } class StrategyA implements Strategy { public data execute(data); } class StrategyB implements Strategy { public StrategyB(int paramA, int paramB); public data execute(data); } class StrategyB implements Strategy { public StrategyB(int paramA, String paramB, double paramC); public data execute(data); } Now I want that the user can enter the parameters in some kind of UI. The UI should be chosen at runtime, i.e. the strategies should be independent of it. The parameter dialog should not be monolithic and there should be the possibility to make it behave and look different for each strategy and UI (e.g. console or Swing). How would you solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • Strategy pattern and "action" classes explosion

    - by devoured elysium
    Is it bad policy to have lots of "work" classes(such as Strategy classes), that only do one thing? Let's assume I want to make a Monster class. Instead of just defining everything I want about the monster in one class, I will try to identify what are its main features, so I can define them in interfaces. That will allow to: Seal the class if I want. Later, other users can just create a new class and still have polymorphism by means of the interfaces I've defined. I don't have to worry how people (or myself) might want to change/add features to the base class in the future. All classes inherit from Object and they implement inheritance through interfaces, not from mother classes. Reuse the strategies I'm using with this monster for other members of my game world. Con: This model is rigid. Sometimes we would like to define something that is not easily achieved by just trying to put together this "building blocks". public class AlienMonster : IWalk, IRun, ISwim, IGrowl { IWalkStrategy _walkStrategy; IRunStrategy _runStrategy; ISwimStrategy _swimStrategy; IGrowlStrategy _growlStrategy; public Monster() { _walkStrategy = new FourFootWalkStrategy(); ...etc } public void Walk() { _walkStrategy.Walk(); } ...etc } My idea would be next to make a series of different Strategies that could be used by different monsters. On the other side, some of them could also be used for totally different purposes (i.e., I could have a tank that also "swims"). The only problem I see with this approach is that it could lead to a explosion of pure "method" classes, i.e., Strategy classes that have as only purpose make this or that other action. In the other hand, this kind of "modularity" would allow for high reuse of stratagies, sometimes even in totally different contexts. What is your opinion on this matter? Is this a valid reasoning? Is this over-engineering? Also, assuming we'd make the proper adjustments to the example I gave above, would it be better to define IWalk as: interface IWalk { void Walk(); } or interface IWalk { IWalkStrategy WalkStrategy { get; set; } //or something that ressembles this } being that doing this I wouldn't need to define the methods on Monster itself, I'd just have public getters for IWalkStrategy (this seems to go against the idea that you should encapsulate everything as much as you can!) Why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Factory pattern vs ease-of-use?

    - by Curtis White
    Background, I am extending the ASP.NET Membership with custom classes and extra tables. The ASP.NET MembershipUser has a protected constructor and a public method to read the data from the database. I have extended the database structure with custom tables and associated classes. Instead of using a static method to create a new member, as in the original API: I allow the code to instantiate a simple object and fill the data because there are several entities. Original Pattern #1 Protected constructor > static CreateUser(string mydata, string, mydata, ...) > User.Data = mydata; > User.Update() My Preferred Pattern #2 Public constructor > newUser = new MembershipUser(); > newUser.data = ... > newUser.ComplextObject.Data = ... > newUser.Insert() > newUser.Load(string key) I find pattern #2 to be easier and more natural to use. But method #1 is more atomic and ensured to contain proper data. I'd like to hear any opinions on pros/cons. The problem in my mind is that I prefer a simple CRUD/object but I am, also, trying to utilize the underlying API. These methods do not match completely. For example, the API has methods, like UnlockUser() and a readonly property for the IsLockedOut

    Read the article

  • How to store the path of a game pawn in a turn based game ?

    - by panzerschreck
    Hello, I have a square grid, for a turn based game ( grid is similar to the chess board ), but the moves in the games are different based on whether you have lapped your opponent pawn at least once or not. i.e if you have not lapped (beaten any of the opponents pawns) in the outer most grid as below if you have lapped your opponent pawn once at least, then you get to reach home,this way.Any player having all his pawns reaching "home" first wins. The ones in yellow are safe-houses, i.e both the opponent pawn and the player's pawn get to stay in the same grid, this is not considered to be lapping ( the opponent ).The lapped pawn will return to its start point. Now the question is, what is the effective way to store the paths for the all the pawns.we will have 4 pawns for the player and 4 opponent pawns. Is there any pattern to store such static information, in a elegant way ? Thanks for your time

    Read the article

  • Concrete Types or Interfaces for return types?

    - by SDReyes
    Today I came to a fundamental paradox of the object programming style, concrete types or interfaces. Whats the better election for a method's return type: a concrete type or an interface? In most cases, I tend to use concrete types as the return type for methods. because I believe that an concrete type is more flexible for further use and exposes more functionality. The dark side of this: Coupling. The angelic one: A concrete type contains per-se the interface you would going to return initially, and extra functionality. What's your thumb's rule? Is there any programming principle for this? BONUS: This is an example of what I mean http://stackoverflow.com/questions/491375/readonlycollection-or-ienumerable-for-exposing-member-collections

    Read the article

  • What makes static initialization functions good, bad, or otherwise?

    - by Richard Levasseur
    Suppose you had code like this: _READERS = None _WRITERS = None def Init(num_readers, reader_params, num_writers, writer_params, ...args...): ...logic... _READERS = new ReaderPool(num_readers, reader_params) _WRITERS = new WriterPool(num_writers, writer_params) ...more logic... class Doer: def __init__(...args...): ... def Read(self, ...args...): c = _READERS.get() try: ...work with conn finally: _READERS.put(c) def Writer(...): ...similar to Read()... To me, this is a bad pattern to follow, some cons: Doers can be created without its preconditions being satisfied The code isn't easily testable because ConnPool can't be directly mocked out. Init has to be called right the first time. If its changed so it can be called multiple times, extra logic has to be added to check if variables are already defined, and lots of NULL values have to be passed around to skip re-initializing. In the event of threads, the above becomes more complicated by adding locking Globals aren't being used to communicate state (which isn't strictly bad, but a code smell) On the other hand, some pros: its very convenient to call Init(5, "user/pass", 2, "user/pass") It simple and "clean" Personally, I think the cons outweigh the pros, that is, testability and assured preconditions outweigh simplicity and convenience.

    Read the article

  • Example with Visitor Pattern

    - by devoured elysium
    public class Song { public string Genre { get; protected set; } public string Name { get; protected set; } public string Band { get; protected set; } public Song(string name, string band, string genre) { Name = name; Genre = genre; Band = band; } } public interface IMusicVisistor { void Visit(List<Song> items); } public class MusicLibrary { List<Song> _songs = new List<Song> { ...songs ... }; public void Accept(IMusicVisitor visitor) { visitor.Visit(_songs); } } and now here's one Visitor I made: public class RockMusicVisitor : IMusicVisitor { public List<Song> Songs { get; protected set; } public void Visit(List<Song> items) { Songs = items.Where(x => x.Genre == "Rock").ToList(); } } Why is this any better than just putting a public property Songs and then letting any kind of class do with it anything that it wants to? This example comes from this post.

    Read the article

  • Seperation of game- and rendering logic

    - by Qua
    What is the best way to seperate rendering code from the actually game engine/logic code? And is it even a good idea to seperate those? Let's assume we have a game object called Knight. The Knight has to be rendered on the screen for the user to see. We're now left with two choices. Either we give the Knight a Render/Draw method that we can call, or we create a renderer class that takes care of rendering all knights. In the scenario where the two is seperated the Knight should the knight still contain all the information needed to render him, or should this be seperated as well? In the last project we created we decided to let all the information required to render an object be stored inside the object itself, but we had a seperate component to actually read those informations and render the objects. The object would contain information such as size, rotation, scale, and which animation was currently playing and based on this the renderer object would compose the screen. Frameworks such as XNA seem to think joining the object and rendering is a good idea, but we're afraid to get tied up to a specific rendering framework, whereas building a seperate rendering component gives us more freedom to change framework at any given time.

    Read the article

  • Creating colour schemes based on an existing scheme

    - by Neil Barnwell
    I have a colour scheme based around yellow, for warning messages on a website. It amounts to a slightly orange bordered box, with a pale yellow fill. The exact colours are: #FED626 (border) #FFF7C0 (fill) I want to know if it's possible to convert this scheme mathematically or algorithmically somehow, to come up with a blue version where the border is the "same amount" of blue as this one is yellow. Is this possible, or do I just "pin the tail on the donkey" on a colour pallet to get roughly the right one? I ask, because I'd quite like to be able to calculate this on the fly, to perhaps implement something in .less. To give you an idea, I tried swopping the red and blue values on those two, and came up with this: #26D6FE (border) #C0F7FF (fill) That wasn't too hard, but think about if I wanted a pink colour scheme... :)

    Read the article

  • Question regarding factory pattern

    - by eriks
    I have a factory class to build objects of base class B. The object (D) that uses this factory received a list of strings representing the actual types. What is the correct implementation: the factory receives an Enum (and uses switch inside the Create function) and D is responsible to convert the string to Enum. the factory receives a string and checks for a match to a set of valid strings (using ifs') other implementation i didn't think of.

    Read the article

  • Empty data problem - data layer or DAL?

    - by luckyluke
    I designing the new App now and giving the following question a lot of thought. I consume a lot of data from the warehouse, and the entities have a lot of dictionary based values (currency, country, tax-whatever data) - dimensions. I cannot be assured though that there won't be nulls. So I am thinking: create an empty value in each of teh dictionaries with special keyID - ie. -1 do the ETL (ssis) do the correct stuff and insert -1 where it needs to let the DAL know that -1 is special (Static const whatever thing) don't care in the code to check for nullness of dictionary entries because THEY will always have a value But maybe I should be thinking: import data AS IS let the DAL do the thinking using empty record Pattern still don't care in the code because business layer will have what it needs from DAL. I think is more of a approach thing but maybe i am missing something important here... What do You think? Am i clear? Please don't confuse it with empty record problem. I do use emptyCustomer think all the time and other defaults too.

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to handle validity dates in applications ?

    - by user214626
    Hello, How do we model these objects ? Scenario 1: Price changes in a time period EffectiveDate ExpiryDate Price 2009-01-01 2009-01-31 800$ 2009-02-01 Null 900$ So, if the price changes to 910$ on 2009-02-15, then the system should automatically update the expiry date on the previous effective price to 2009-02-14, to keep it consistent. Scenario 2: No price specified between 2009-02-01 to 2009-02-28 EffectiveDate ExpiryDate Price 2009-01-01 2009-01-31 800$ 2009-03-01 Null 900$ So, if new price is specified for 2009-02-15 onwards , then the system should automatically set the expiry date on the record to be inserted to 2009-02-28, because already a record effective from 2009-03-01 exists. Please suggest an effective way to handle these scenarios to model my framework, or are there any frameworks around that can do this . Thanks

    Read the article

  • Overlay 2d weapon sprite over character sprite ?

    - by Mr.Gando
    Hello, I'm working on a game where my character needs to be able to have different weapons. For that I think that somehow overlaying the weapon over the moving sprite would be the correct choice, but I'm not sure about how could I do this. Assuming my Character spritesheet looks like this: And my preliminar weapon spritesheet ( haven't decided on a fixed square size for the weapon yet ), looks like this: How would you make the overlay to set the weapon correctly over the character hand for each of his frames? I know that one way would be just to have a weapon frame the same size as my character sprites, and overlay those too, but I think that if the game has way too much weapons (say 15 different kinds of one hand weaps) this could get pretty insane ( having one weapon sprite sheet the same size as the character sprite sheet for each type of weapon ) Do you guys have any advice on how to implement this? (supporting overlaying the weapon sprites over the character sprites) Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • UML Class Relationships

    - by 01010011
    Hi, I would like to confirm whether I am on the right track when identifying common UML class relationships. For example, is the relationship between: 1 a stackoverflow member and his/her stackoverflow user account categorized as a composition relationship or an aggregation relationship? At first I thought it was an association because this member "has a" account. However on second thought, I am thinking its composition because each "part" (user account) belongs to only one whole (user) at a time, meaning for as long as I am logged into stackoverflow, I have to use this one and only account until I log off. If I log back onto stackoverflow with a different account then its composition again. Do you agree? 2 a database and a person's user account an aggregation relationship? I think so because 1 database (the whole) can store 0...* number of user accounts (the parts) but another database can store the same user accounts. Finally, can anyone recommend a website that specializes in designing code using UML? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Concurency problem with Isolation - read-committed

    - by Ratn Deo--Dev
    I have to write a simple demo for amount withdrawl from a joint Bank amount .Andy and Jen holds a joint bank account with number 123 . Suppose they have 100$ in their account .Jen and Andy are operating their account at the same time and both are trying to withdraw 90$ at the time being .My transaction Isolation is set to read-committed and both are able to withdraw money leaving the balance to -(minus)80$ although I have constraint that balance should never be less than 0. I am using hibernate .Is versioning only way to solve this problem or I should go for another Isolation level ?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for managing reference count and object life

    - by Gopalakrishnan Subramani
    We have a serial port which is connected to hundreds of physical devices on the same wire. We have protocols like Modbus and Hart to handle the request and response between the application and devices. The question is related to managing the reference count of the channel. When no device is using the channel, the channel should be closed. public class SerialPortChannel { int refCount = 0; public void AddReference() { refCount++; } public void ReleaseReference() { refCount--; if (refCount <= 0) this.ReleasePort(); //This close the serial port } } For each device connected, we create a object for the device like device = new Device(); device.Attach(channel); //this calls channel.AddReference() When the device disconnect, device.Detach(channel); //this calls channel.ReleaseReference() I am not convinced by the reference count model. Are there any better way to handle this problem in .NET World?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid injecting dependencies into an object so that it can pass them on?

    - by Pheter
    I am interested in applying dependency injection to my current project, which makes use of the MVC pattern. My controllers will call the models and therefore will need to inject the dependencies into the models. To do this, the controller must have the dependencies (such as a database object) in the first place. The controller doesn't need to make use of some of these dependencies (such as the database object), so I feel that it shouldn't be given this dependency. However, it has to have these dependencies if it is to inject them into the model objects. How can I avoid having dependencies injected into an object just so that it can pass them on? Doing so feels wrong and can result in many dependencies being injected into an object. Edit: I am using PHP.

    Read the article

  • How can i return abstract class from any factory?

    - by programmerist
    using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; namespace EfTestFactory { public abstract class _Company { public abstract List<Personel> GetPersonel(); public abstract List<Prim> GetPrim(); public abstract List<Finans> GetFinans(); } public abstract class _Radyoloji { public abstract List<string> GetRadyoloji(); } public abstract class _Satis { public abstract List<string> GetSatis(); } public abstract class _Muayene { public abstract List<string> GetMuayene(); } public class Company : _Company { public override List<Personel> GetPersonel() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public override List<Prim> GetPrim() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public override List<Finans> GetFinans() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Radyoloji : _Radyoloji { public override List<string> GetRadyoloji() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Satis : _Satis { public override List<string> GetSatis() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Muayene : _Muayene { public override List<string> GetMuayene() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class GenoTipController { public object CreateByEnum(DataModelType modeltype) { string enumText = modeltype.ToString(); // will return for example "Company" Type classType = Type.GetType(enumText); // the Type for Company class object t = Activator.CreateInstance(classType); // create an instance of Company class return t; } } public class AntsController { static Dictionary<DataModelType, Func<object>> s_creators = new Dictionary<DataModelType, Func<object>>() { { DataModelType.Radyoloji, () => new _Radyoloji() }, { DataModelType.Company, () => new _Company() }, { DataModelType.Muayene, () => new _Muayene() }, { DataModelType.Satis, () => new _Satis() }, }; public object CreateByEnum(DataModelType modeltype) { return s_creators[modeltype](); } } public class CompanyView { public static List<Personel> GetPersonel() { GenoTipController controller = new GenoTipController(); _Company company = controller.CreateByEnum(DataModelType.Company) as _Company; return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { Radyoloji, Satis, Muayene, Company } } if i write above codes i see some error: Cannot create an instance of abstract class or interface 'EfTestFactory_Company'How can i solve it? Look please below pic.

    Read the article

  • Hierarchy / Flyweight / Instancing Problem in Python

    - by Dan
    Here is the problem I am trying to solve, (I have simplified the actual problem, but this should give you all the relevant information). I have a hierarchy like so: 1.A 1.B 1.C 2.A 3.D 4.B 5.F (This is hard to illustrate - each number is the parent, each letter is the child). Creating an instance of the 'letter' objects is expensive (IO, database costs, etc), so should only be done once. The hierarchy needs to be easy to navigate. Children in the hierarchy need to have just one parent. Modifying the contents of the letter objects should be possible directly from the objects in the hierarchy. There needs to be a central store containing all of the 'letter' objects (and only those in the hierarchy). 'letter' and 'number' objects need to be possible to create from a constructor (such as Letter(**kwargs) ). It is perfectably acceptable to expect that when a letter changes from the hierarchy, all other letters will respect the same change. Hope this isn't too abstract to illustrate the problem. What would be the best way of solving this? (Then I'll post my solution) Here's an example script: one = Number('one') a = Letter('a') one.addChild(a) two = Number('two') a = Letter('a') two.addChild(a) for child in one: child.method1() for child in two: print '%s' % child.method2()

    Read the article

  • Object Oriented Database - why most of the companies do not use them

    - by GigaPr
    Hi, I am pretty new to programming(just finished University). I have been thought in the last 4 years about Object Oriented development and the numerous advantages of this approach. My question is Isn't it easier to use a pure Object Oriented database in development applications? Why Object Oriented database are not as much diffuse as relational? From my point of view makes sense to use OO database, the latter will avoid the numerous construction necessary for the mapping of complex objects on the tables.

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