Search Results

Search found 7959 results on 319 pages for 'broken logic'.

Page 58/319 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >

  • yield – Just yet another sexy c# keyword?

    - by George Mamaladze
    yield (see NSDN c# reference) operator came I guess with .NET 2.0 and I my feeling is that it’s not as wide used as it could (or should) be.   I am not going to talk here about necessarity and advantages of using iterator pattern when accessing custom sequences (just google it).   Let’s look at it from the clean code point of view. Let's see if it really helps us to keep our code understandable, reusable and testable.   Let’s say we want to iterate a tree and do something with it’s nodes, for instance calculate a sum of their values. So the most elegant way would be to build a recursive method performing a classic depth traversal returning the sum.           private int CalculateTreeSum(Node top)         {             int sumOfChildNodes = 0;             foreach (Node childNode in top.ChildNodes)             {                 sumOfChildNodes += CalculateTreeSum(childNode);             }             return top.Value + sumOfChildNodes;         }     “Do One Thing” Nevertheless it violates one of the most important rules “Do One Thing”. Our  method CalculateTreeSum does two things at the same time. It travels inside the tree and performs some computation – in this case calculates sum. Doing two things in one method is definitely a bad thing because of several reasons: ·          Understandability: Readability / refactoring ·          Reuseability: when overriding - no chance to override computation without copying iteration code and vice versa. ·          Testability: you are not able to test computation without constructing the tree and you are not able to test correctness of tree iteration.   I want to spend some more words on this last issue. How do you test the method CalculateTreeSum when it contains two in one: computation & iteration? The only chance is to construct a test tree and assert the result of the method call, in our case the sum against our expectation. And if the test fails you do not know wether was the computation algorithm wrong or was that the iteration? At the end to top it all off I tell you: according to Murphy’s Law the iteration will have a bug as well as the calculation. Both bugs in a combination will cause the sum to be accidentally exactly the same you expect and the test will PASS. J   Ok let’s use yield! That’s why it is generally a very good idea not to mix but isolate “things”. Ok let’s use yield!           private int CalculateTreeSumClean(Node top)         {             IEnumerable<Node> treeNodes = GetTreeNodes(top);             return CalculateSum(treeNodes);         }             private int CalculateSum(IEnumerable<Node> nodes)         {             int sumOfNodes = 0;             foreach (Node node in nodes)             {                 sumOfNodes += node.Value;             }             return sumOfNodes;         }           private IEnumerable<Node> GetTreeNodes(Node top)         {             yield return top;             foreach (Node childNode in top.ChildNodes)             {                 foreach (Node currentNode in GetTreeNodes(childNode))                 {                     yield return currentNode;                 }             }         }   Two methods does not know anything about each other. One contains calculation logic another jut the iteration logic. You can relpace the tree iteration algorithm from depth traversal to breath trevaersal or use stack or visitor pattern instead of recursion. This will not influence your calculation logic. And vice versa you can relace the sum with product or do whatever you want with node values, the calculateion algorithm is not aware of beeng working on some tree or graph.  How about not using yield? Now let’s ask the question – what if we do not have yield operator? The brief look at the generated code gives us an answer. The compiler generates a 150 lines long class to implement the iteration logic.       [CompilerGenerated]     private sealed class <GetTreeNodes>d__0 : IEnumerable<Node>, IEnumerable, IEnumerator<Node>, IEnumerator, IDisposable     {         ...        150 Lines of generated code        ...     }   Often we compromise code readability, cleanness, testability, etc. – to reduce number of classes, code lines, keystrokes and mouse clicks. This is the human nature - we are lazy. Knowing and using such a sexy construct like yield, allows us to be lazy, write very few lines of code and at the same time stay clean and do one thing in a method. That's why I generally welcome using staff like that.   Note: The above used recursive depth traversal algorithm is possibly the compact one but not the best one from the performance and memory utilization point of view. It was taken to emphasize on other primary aspects of this post.

    Read the article

  • Default values - are they good or evil?

    - by Andrew
    The question about default values in general - default return function values, default parameter values, default logic for when something is missing, default logic for handling exceptions, default logic for handling the edge conditions etc. For a long time I considered default values to be a "pure evil" thing, something that "cloaks the catastrophe" and results in a very hard do find bugs. But recently I started to think about default values as some sort of a technical debt ... which is not a straight bad thing but something that could provide some "short term financing" get us to survive the project (how many of us could afford to buy a house without taking out the mortgage?). When I say a "short term" - I don't mean - "do something quickly first and do refactor it out later before it hits the production". No - I am talking about relying on a hardcoded default values in a production software. Granted - it could cause some issues, but what if it only going to cause a single trouble in a whole year. Again - I am talking about the "average" mainstream software here (not a software for a nuclear power station) - the average web site or a UI application for the accounting software, meaning that people lives are not at stake, nor millions of dollars. Again, from my experience, business users would rather live with the software which "works somehow", rather then wait for a perfect one. And the use of default values helps a lot if you develop a software in a RAD style. But again - the longest debug sessions I have spent were because of the bugs introduced by a default value which either stopped being "a default" along the way or because a small subsystem has recently been upgraded and as a result of this upgrade it does not handle the default correctly (e.g. empty list vs null, or null string vs empty string). So my question is - are the default values good or evil. And if they are a technical debt - how do measure up how much you can borrow so you can afford the repayments? Would really appreciate any input. Cheers. EDIT: If I am using the default values as a way to cut the corners during the development - and if the corners cutting results in a bugs and issues - what is the methodology to recover from these issues?

    Read the article

  • Structure of a correctly implemented JTable with TableModel and Listeners?

    - by bamboocha
    I am pretty new to Java and its JTables and this is where I am struggling at the moment. I need to create a GUI which shows me results of a sql query like SELECT * FROM tblPeople WHERE name='Doe'. My idea was to create a a JFrame which displays a JTable with all found records. Besides this, I need to also implement some code to handle when a user is double clicking a record or selecting it by using his arrow keys (additional feature: pressing 12(e.g.) should select the 12th record). What is the best way to structure my program (what classes do I need and especially where do I store my logic)? I came up with structuring it the following way: Main.java ("view") SQLConnection.java PeopleTableModel.java (only stores and returns data given by the passed ResultSet, "model" inherits from DefaultTableModel) PeopleTable.java (stores basically all my logic including KeyListener and MouseListener, "controller", inherits from JTable) Are there better ways to achieve my goals? If so, what are they?

    Read the article

  • Switching between levels, re-initialize existing structure or create new one?

    - by Martino Wullems
    This is something I've been wondering for quite a while. When building games that exist out of multiple levels (platformers, shmups etc) what is the prefered method to switch between the levels? Let's say we have a level class that does the following: Load data for the level design (tiles), enemies, graphics etc. Setup all these elements in their appriopate locations and display them Start physics and game logic I'm stuck between the following 2 methods: 1: Throw away everything in the level class and make a new one, we have to load an entirely new level anyway! 2: pause the game logic and physics, unload all currents assets, then re-initialize those components with the level data for the new level. They both have their pros and cons. Method 1 is alot easier and seems to make sense since we have to redo everything anyway. But method 2 allows you to re-use exisiting elements which might save resources and allows for a smoother transfer to the new level.

    Read the article

  • Creating a level editor event system

    - by Vaughan Hilts
    I'm designing a level editor for game, and I'm trying to create sort of an 'event' system so I can chain together things. If anyone has used RPG Maker, I'm trying to do similar to their system. Right now, I have an 'EventTemplate' class and a bunch of sub-classed 'EventNodes' which basically just contain properties of their data. Orginally, the IAction and IExecute interface performed logic but it was moved into a DLL to share between the two projects. Question: How can I abstract logic from data in this case? Is my model wrong? Isn't cast typing expensive to parse these actions all the time? Should I write a 'Processor' class to execute these all? But then these actions that can do all sorts of things need to interact with all sorts of sub-systems.

    Read the article

  • As a tooling/automation developer, can I be making better use of OOP?

    - by Tom Pickles
    My time as a developer (~8 yrs) has been spent creating tooling/automation of one sort or another. The tools I develop usually interface with one or more API's. These API's could be win32, WMI, VMWare, a help-desk application, LDAP, you get the picture. The apps I develop could be just to pull back data and store/report. It could be to provision groups of VM's to create live like mock environments, update a trouble ticket etc. I've been developing in .Net and I'm currently reading into design patterns and trying to think about how I can improve my skills to make better use of and increase my understanding of OOP. For example, I've never used an interface of my own making in anger (which is probably not a good thing), because I honestly cannot identify where using one would benefit later on when modifying my code. My classes are usually very specific and I don't create similar classes with similar properties/methods which could use a common interface (like perhaps a car dealership or shop application might). I generally use an n-tier approach to my apps, having a presentation layer, a business logic/manager layer which interfaces with layer(s) that make calls to the API's I'm working with. My business entities are always just method-less container objects, which I populate with data and pass back and forth between my API interfacing layer using static methods to proxy/validate between the front and the back end. My code by nature of my work, has few common components, at least from what I can see. So I'm struggling to see how I can better make use of OOP design and perhaps reusable patterns. Am I right to be concerned that I could be being smarter about how I work, or is what I'm doing now right for my line of work? Or, am I missing something fundamental in OOP? EDIT: Here is some basic code to show how my mgr and api facing layers work. I use static classes as they do not persist any data, only facilitate moving it between layers. public static class MgrClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Perform logic to validate or apply biz logic // call APIClass to do the work return APIClass.PowerOnVM(VMName); } } public static class APIClass { public static bool PowerOnVM(string VMName) { // Calls to 3rd party API to power on a virtual machine // returns true or false if was successful for example } }

    Read the article

  • Detecting a ledge in Box2D

    - by DormoTheNord
    I'm making a 2D platformer with Box2D. The player needs to be able to grab onto a ledge and pull him/herself up. Right now I have a sensor that extends in every direction from the upper half of the player's body. The logic seems simple enough: if there are tiles inside the sensor and empty space above them, then it's a ledge and the game should act accordingly. The problem is that I can't figure out how to implement that logic with Box2D. Anyone have any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Updating an Entity through a Service

    - by GeorgeK
    I'm separating my software into three main layers (maybe tiers would be a better term): Presentation ('Views') Business logic ('Services' and 'Repositories') Data access ('Entities' (e.g. ActiveRecords)) What do I have now? In Presentation, I use read-only access to Entities, returned from Repositories or Services, to display data. $banks = $banksRegistryService->getBanksRepository()->getBanksByCity( $city ); $banksViewModel = new PaginatedList( $banks ); // some way to display banks; // example, not real code I find this approach quite efficient in terms of performance and code maintanability and still safe as long as all write operations (create, update, delete) are preformed through a Service: namespace Service\BankRegistry; use Service\AbstractDatabaseService; use Service\IBankRegistryService; use Model\BankRegistry\Bank; class Service extends AbstractDatabaseService implements IBankRegistryService { /** * Registers a new Bank * * @param string $name Bank's name * @param string $bik Bank's Identification Code * @param string $correspondent_account Bank's correspondent account * * @return Bank */ public function registerBank( $name, $bik, $correspondent_account ) { $bank = new Bank(); $bank -> setName( $name ) -> setBik( $bik ) -> setCorrespondentAccount( $correspondent_account ); if( null === $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank() ) $this->setDefaultBank( $bank ); $this->getEntityManager()->persist( $bank ); return $bank; } /** * Makes the $bank system's default bank * * @param Bank $bank * @return IBankRegistryService */ public function setDefaultBank( Bank $bank ) { $default_bank = $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank(); if( null !== $default_bank ) $default_bank->setDefault( false ); $bank->setDefault( true ); return $this; } } Where am I stuck? I'm struggling about how to update certain fields in Bank Entity. Bad solution #1: Making a series of setters in Service for each setter in Bank; - seems to be quite reduntant, increases Service interface complexity and proportionally decreases it's simplicity - something to avoid if you care about code maitainability. I try to follow KISS and DRY principles. Bad solution #2: Modifying Bank directly through it's native setters; - really bad. If you'll ever need to move modification into the Service, it will be pain. Business logic should remain in Business logic layer. Plus, there are plans on logging all of the actions and maybe even involve user permissions (perhaps, through decorators) in future, so all modifications should be made only through the Service. Possible good solution: Creating an updateBank( Bank $bank, $array_of_fields_to_update) method; - makes the interface as simple as possible, but there is a problem: one should not try to manually set isDefault flag on a Bank, this operation should be performed through setDefaultBank method. It gets even worse when you have relations that you don't want to be directly modified. Of course, you can just limit the fields that can be modified by this method, but how do you tell method's user what they can and cannot modify? Exceptions?

    Read the article

  • Multi-Threaded Pipelined Game Engine Data Synchronization Questions

    - by Douglas
    Let's say I'm setting up a worker pool based game engine with pipelining. Let's say I have 4 stages in my pipeline as such: Stage 1: Physics Stage 2: AI/Input Stage 3: Game Logic Stage 4: Rendering Now let's say that the physics detects a collision between a bullet and a character in stage 1. Two frames later the game logic may choose to remove that bullet from the simulation, however none of the other copies of the data for the other pipeline stages will get this information. How is this sort of thing and other things like it get handled? Do you generally make changes like this to every pipeline stage's data at the end of a frame?

    Read the article

  • Real-Time Multi-User Gaming Platform

    - by Victor Engel
    I asked this question at Stack Overflow but was told it's more appropriate here, so I'm posting it again here. I'm considering developing a real-time multi-user game, and I want to gather some information about possibilities before I do some real development. I've thought about how best to ask the question, and for simplicity, the best way that occurred to me was to make an analogy to the field (or playground) game darebase. In the field game of darebase, there are two or more bases. To start, there is one team on each base. The game is a fancy game of tag. When two people meet out in the field, the person who left his base most recently timewise captures the other person. They then return to that person's base. Play continues until everyone is part of the same team. So, analogizing this to an online computer game, let's suppose there are an indefinite number of bases. When a person starts up the game, he has a team that is located at, for example, his current GPS coordinates. It could be a virtual world, but for sake of argument, let's suppose the virtual world corresponds to the player's actual GPS coordinates. The game software then consults the database to see where the closest other base is that is online, and the two teams play their game of virtual tag. Note that the user of the other base could have a different base than the one run by the current user as the closest base to him, in which case, he would be in two simultaneous battles, one with each base. When they go offline, the state of their players is saved on a server somewhere. Game logic calls for the players to have some automaton-logic of some sort, so they can fend for themselves in a limited way using basic rules, until their user goes online again. The user doesn't control the players' movements directly, but issues general directives that influence the players' movement logic. I think this analogy is good enough to frame my question. What sort of platforms are available to develop this sort of game? I've been looking at smartfoxserver, but I'm not convinced yet that it is the best option or even that it will work at all. One possibility, of course, would be to roll out my own web server, but I'd rather not do that if there is an existing service out there already that I could tap into. I will be developing for iOS devices at first. So any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I think I need to establish the architecture first before proceeding with this project. Note that darbase is not the game I intend to implement, but, upon reflection, that might not be a bad idea either.

    Read the article

  • Techniques for separating game model from presentation

    - by liortal
    I am creating a simple 2D game using XNA. The elements that make up the game world are what i refer to as the "model". For instance, in a board game, i would have a GameBoard class that stores information about the board. This information could be things such as: Location Size Details about cells on the board (occupied/not occupied) etc This object should either know how to draw itself, or describe how to draw itself to some other entity (renderer) in order to be displayed. I believe that since the board only contains the data+logic for things regarding it or cells on it, it should not provide the logic of how to draw things (separation of concerns). How can i achieve a good partitioning and easily allow some other entity to draw it properly? My motivations for doing so are: Allow multiple "implementations" of presentation for a single game entity Easier porting to other environments where the presentation code is not available (for example - porting my code to Unity or other game technology that does not rely on XNA).

    Read the article

  • What is the situation about OpenGL under Ubuntu Unity and Gnome3?

    - by user827992
    In a GNU/linux distribution is usually installed Xorg as main graphical server, it operates with a client-server logic, a special windows is designate as desktop environment and this special windows can handle all the eyecandy stuff like decorations, icons and effects. The problem is that the latest UI heavily relies on hardware acceleration, Unity is an overlay on Compiz and the Gnome-shell also require an active driver for the GPU to work well: the problem is: on the same OS I can find multiple implementations of OpenGL who is handling my OpenGL buffer? how the OpenGL buffer is managed compared to the other windows? how can I be sure that my OpenGL implementation is glued to the hardware and is not related to the client-server logic of Xorg? For example I have tried the clutter library and I have only experienced problems under both Unity and GTK/Gnome, no problem under other OS.

    Read the article

  • Suggestions needed on an architecture for a multiple clients and customisable web application

    - by ValidfroM
    Our product is a web based course managemant system. We have 10+ clients and in future we may get more clients. (Asp.net,SQL Server) Currently if one of our customers need extra functionality or customised business logic, we will change the db schema and code to meet the needs. (we only have one branch code base and one database schema) To make the change wont affect each others route, we use a client flag, which defined in a web config file, thus those extra fields and biz logic only applied to a particular customer's system. if(ClientId = 'ABC') { //DO ABC Stuff } else { //Normal Route } One of our senior colleagues said, in this way, small company like us can save resources on supporting multiple resources. But what I feel is, this strategy makes our code and database even harder to maintain. Anyone there crossed similar situation? How do you handle that?

    Read the article

  • Make a flowchart to demonstrate closure behavior

    - by thomas
    I saw below test question the other day in which the author's used a flow chart to represent the logic of loops. And I got to thinking it would be interesting to do this with some more complex logic. For example, the closure in this IIFE sort of boggles me. while (i <= qty_of_gets) { // needs an IIFE (function(i) promise = promise.then(function(){ return $.get("queries/html/" + product_id + i + ".php"); }); }(i++)); } I wonder if seeing a flowchart representation of what happens in it could be more elucidating. Could such a thing be done? Would it be helpful? Or just messy? I haven't the foggiest clue where to start, but thought maybe someone would like to take a stab. Probably all the ajax could go and it could just be a simple return within the IIFE.

    Read the article

  • should I extend or create instance of the class

    - by meWantToLearn
    I have two classes Class A and Class B in Class A, i have three methods that perform the save, delete and select operation based upon the object I pass them. in Class B I perform the logic operations, such as modification to the property of the object before being passed to the methods of Class A, My problem is in Class B, should it extend Class A, and call the methods of class A , by parent::methodName or create instance of class A and then call Class A does not includes any property just methods. class A{ public function save($obj){ //code here } public function delete($obj){ //code here } public function select($obj){ //code here } } //Should I extend class A, and call the method by parent::methodName($obj) or create an instance of class A, call the method $instanceOfA-methodName($obj); class B extends A{ public function checkIfHasSaved($obj){ if($obj->saved == 'Yes'){ parent::save($obj); //**should I call the method like this** $instanceOFA = new A(); //**or create instance of class A and call without extending class A** instanceOFA->save($obj); } //other logic operations here } }

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 + RIA Services - Ready for Business: Exposing WCF (SOAP\WSDL) Services

    Continuing in our series, I wanted to touch on how a RIA Services can be exposed as a Soap\WSDL service.   This is very useful if you want to enable the exact same business logic\data access logic is available to clients other than Silverlight.    For example to a WinForms application or WPF or even a console application.  SOAP is a particularly good model for interop with the Java\JEE world as well.    First you need to add a reference to Microsoft.ServiceModel.DomainSerivves.Hosting.EndPoints...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Is possible to write too many asserts?

    - by Lex Fridman
    I am a big fan of writing assert checks in C++ code as a way to catch cases during development that cannot possibly happen but do happen because of logic bugs in my program. This is a good practice in general. However, I've noticed that some functions I write (which are part of a complex class) have 5+ asserts which feels like it could potentially be a bad programming practice, in terms of readability and maintainability. I think it's still great, as each one requires me to think about pre- and post-conditions of functions and they really do help catch bugs. However, I just wanted to put this out there to ask if there is a better paradigms for catching logic errors in cases when a large number of checks is necessary.

    Read the article

  • DDD / Layers and legacy systems

    - by CSM
    I have to refactor a complex C# app (many dialogs, mixed logic and so on). There is a part managing the communication with special hardware equipments (sending commands and receive data via asynchronous c# callbacks). The code is "spaghetti" with mixed UI/Logic/Communication/etc and my task is to split the layers in a DDD sense. So, to which layer belongs a callback driver routine? The callbacks are creating "bubbles" in the system, up to the UI layer and because of this I cannot enforce the essential principle that any element of a layer depends only on other elements in the same layer or on elements of the layers "beneath" it. Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Do reactive extensions and ETL go together?

    - by Aaron Anodide
    I don't fully understand reactive extensions, but my inital reading caused me think about the ETL code I have. Right now its basically a workflow to to perform various operations in a certain sequence based on conditions it find as it progresses. I can also imagine an event driven way such that only a small amount of imperative logic causes a chain reaction to occur. Of course I don't need a new type of programming model to make an event driven collaboration like that. Just the same I am wondering if ETL is a good fit for potentially exploring Rx further. Is my connection in a valid direction even? If not, could you briefly correct the error in my logic?

    Read the article

  • LINQ and ArcObjects

    - by Marko Apfel
    Motivation LINQ (language integrated query) is a component of the Microsoft. NET Framework since version 3.5. It allows a SQL-like query to various data sources such as SQL, XML etc. Like SQL also LINQ to SQL provides a declarative notation of problem solving – i.e. you don’t need describe in detail how a task could be solved, you describe what to be solved at all. This frees the developer from error-prone iterator constructs. Ideally, of course, would be to access features with this way. Then this construct is conceivable: var largeFeatures = from feature in features where (feature.GetValue("SHAPE_Area").ToDouble() > 3000) select feature; or its equivalent as a lambda expression: var largeFeatures = features.Where(feature => (feature.GetValue("SHAPE_Area").ToDouble() > 3000)); This requires an appropriate provider, which manages the corresponding iterator logic. This is easier than you might think at first sight - you have to deliver only the desired entities as IEnumerable<IFeature>. LINQ automatically establishes a state machine in the background, whose execution is delayed (deferred execution) - when you are really request entities (foreach, Count (), ToList (), ..) an instantiation processing takes place, although it was already created at a completely different place. Especially in multiple iteration through entities in the first debuggings you are rubbing your eyes when the execution pointer jumps magically back in the iterator logic. Realization A very concise logic for constructing IEnumerable<IFeature> can be achieved by running through a IFeatureCursor. You return each feature via yield. For an easier usage I have put the logic in an extension method Getfeatures() for IFeatureClass: public static IEnumerable<IFeature> GetFeatures(this IFeatureClass featureClass, IQueryFilter queryFilter, RecyclingPolicy policy) { IFeatureCursor featureCursor = featureClass.Search(queryFilter, RecyclingPolicy.Recycle == policy); IFeature feature; while (null != (feature = featureCursor.NextFeature())) { yield return feature; } //this is skipped in unit tests with cursor-mock if (Marshal.IsComObject(featureCursor)) { Marshal.ReleaseComObject(featureCursor); } } So you can now easily generate the IEnumerable<IFeature>: IEnumerable<IFeature> features = _featureClass.GetFeatures(RecyclingPolicy.DoNotRecycle); You have to be careful with the recycling cursor. After a delayed execution in the same context it is not a good idea to re-iterated on the features. In this case only the content of the last (recycled) features is provided and all the features are the same in the second set. Therefore, this expression would be critical: largeFeatures.ToList(). ForEach(feature => Debug.WriteLine(feature.OID)); because ToList() iterates once through the list and so the the cursor was once moved through the features. So the extension method ForEach() always delivers the same feature. In such situations, you must not use a recycling cursor. Repeated executions of ForEach() is not a problem, because for every time the state machine is re-instantiated and thus the cursor runs again - that's the magic already mentioned above. Perspective Now you can also go one step further and realize your own implementation for the interface IEnumerable<IFeature>. This requires that only the method and property to access the enumerator have to be programmed. In the enumerator himself in the Reset() method you organize the re-executing of the search. This could be archived with an appropriate delegate in the constructor: new FeatureEnumerator<IFeatureclass>(_featureClass, featureClass => featureClass.Search(_filter, isRecyclingCursor)); which is called in Reset(): public void Reset() { _featureCursor = _resetCursor(_t); } In this manner, enumerators for completely different scenarios could be implemented, which are used on the client side completely identical like described above. Thus cursors, selection sets, etc. merge into a single matter and the reusability of code is increasing immensely. On top of that in automated unit tests an IEnumerable could be mocked very easily - a major step towards better software quality. Conclusion Nevertheless, caution should be exercised with these constructs in performance-relevant queries. Because of managing a state machine in the background, a lot of overhead is created. The processing costs additional time - about 20 to 100 percent. In addition, working without a recycling cursor is fast a performance gap. However declarative LINQ code is much more elegant, flawless and easy to maintain than manually iterating, compare and establish a list of results. The code size is reduced according to experience an average of 75 to 90 percent! So I like to wait a few milliseconds longer. As so often it has to be balanced between maintainability and performance - which for me is gaining in priority maintainability. In times of multi-core processors, the processing time of most business processes is anyway not dominated by code execution but by waiting for user input. Demo source code The source code for this prototype with several unit tests, you can download here: https://github.com/esride-apf/Linq2ArcObjects. .

    Read the article

  • Architecture for dashbaord showing aggregated stats

    - by soulnafein
    I'm trying to find the best architecture for an application that shows a dashboard with aggregated stats that come from another one (e.g. number of sales in the last 12 months, current sales this month, a fairly complex score, performance of users over last 30 days, etc.) There is a fair bit of business logic that lives in Application 1 but the aggregated data gets saved in Application 2 (dashboard). What's the best way to create the aggregate data? 1) Pull data directly from Application 1 database and duplicate business logic for score calculation etc. 2) Push data from Application 1 to Application 2 somehow 3) Aggregate data in Application 1 on the fly and provide and api for Application 2 4) Other (probably) Please suggest solutions, Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 + RIA Services - Ready for Business: Exposing WCF (SOAP\WSDL) Services

    Continuing in our series, I wanted to touch on how a RIA Services can be exposed as a Soap\WSDL service.   This is very useful if you want to enable the exact same business logic\data access logic is available to clients other than Silverlight.    For example to a WinForms application or WPF or even a console application.  SOAP is a particularly good model for interop with the Java\JEE world as well.    First you need to add a reference to Microsoft.ServiceModel.DomainSerivves.Hosting.EndPoints...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Several classes need to access the same data, where should the data be declared?

    - by Juicy
    I have a basic 2D tower defense game in C++. Each map is a separate class which inherits from GameState. The map delegates the logic and drawing code to each object in the game and sets data such as the map path. In pseudo-code the logic section might look something like this: update(): for each creep in creeps: creep.update() for each tower in towers: tower.update() for each missile in missiles: missile.update() The objects (creeps, towers and missiles) are stored in vector-of-pointers. The towers must have access to the vector-of-creeps and the vector-of-missiles to create new missiles and identify targets. The question is: where do I declare the vectors? Should they be members of the Map class, and passed as arguments to the tower.update() function? Or declared globally? Or are there other solutions I'm missing entirely?

    Read the article

  • while(true) and loop-breaking - anti-pattern?

    - by KeithS
    Consider the following code: public void doSomething(int input) { while(true) { TransformInSomeWay(input); if(ProcessingComplete(input)) break; DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } Assume that this process involves a finite but input-dependent number of steps; the loop is designed to terminate on its own as a result of the algorithm, and is not designed to run indefinitely (until cancelled by an outside event). Because the test to see if the loop should end is in the middle of a logical set of steps, the while loop itself currently doesn't check anything meaningful; the check is instead performed at the "proper" place within the conceptual algorithm. I was told that this is bad code, because it is more bug-prone due to the ending condition not being checked by the loop structure. It's more difficult to figure out how you'd exit the loop, and could invite bugs as the breaking condition might be bypassed or omitted accidentally given future changes. Now, the code could be structured as follows: public void doSomething(int input) { TransformInSomeWay(input); while(!ProcessingComplete(input)) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); TransformInSomeWay(input); } } However, this duplicates a call to a method in code, violating DRY; if TransformInSomeWay were later replaced with some other method, both calls would have to be found and changed (and the fact that there are two may be less obvious in a more complex piece of code). You could also write it like: public void doSomething(int input) { var complete = false; while(!complete) { TransformInSomeWay(input); complete = ProcessingComplete(input); if(!complete) { DoSomethingElseTo(input); } } } ... but you now have a variable whose only purpose is to shift the condition-checking to the loop structure, and also has to be checked multiple times to provide the same behavior as the original logic. For my part, I say that given the algorithm this code implements in the real world, the original code is the most readable. If you were going through it yourself, this is the way you'd think about it, and so it would be intuitive to people familiar with the algorithm. So, which is "better"? is it better to give the responsibility of condition checking to the while loop by structuring the logic around the loop? Or is it better to structure the logic in a "natural" way as indicated by requirements or a conceptual description of the algorithm, even though that may mean bypassing the loop's built-in capabilities?

    Read the article

  • best practice for initializing class members in php

    - by rgvcorley
    I have lots of code like this in my constructors:- function __construct($params) { $this->property = isset($params['property']) ? $params['property'] : default_val; } Is it better to do this rather than specify the default value in the property definition? i.e. public $property = default_val? Sometimes there is logic for the default value, and some default values are taken from other properties, which was why I was doing this in the constructor. Should I be using setters so all the logic for default values is separated?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >