Search Results

Search found 240 results on 10 pages for 'coupling'.

Page 6/10 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

• How to achieve a loosely coupled REST API but with a defined and well understood contract?

  - by BestPractices

  I am new to REST and am struggling to understand how one would properly design a REST system to both allow for loose coupling but at the same time allow a consumer of a REST API to understand the API. If, in my client code, I issue a GET request for a resource and get back XML, how do I know what to do with that xml? e.g. if it contains <fname>John</fname><lname>Smith</lname> how do I know that these refer to the concept of "first name", "last name"? Is it up to the person writing the REST API to define in documentation some place what each of the XML fields mean? What if producer of the API wants to change the implementation to be <firstname> instead of <fname>? How do they do this and notify their consumers that this change occurred? Or do the consumers just encounter the error and then look at the payload and figure out on their own that it changed? I've read in REST in Practice that using a WADL tool to create a client implementation based on the WADL (and hide the fact that you're doing a distributed call) is an "anti-pattern". But I was planning to do this-- at least then I would have a statically typed API call that, if it changed, I would know at compile time and not at run time. Why is this a bad thing to generate client code based on a WADL? And how do I know what to do with the links that returned in the response of a POST to a REST API? What defines this contract and gives true meaning to what each link will do? Please help! I dont understand how to go from statically-typed or even SOAP/RPC to REST!

  Read the article

• Understanding Service Compensation part of Industrial SOA series

  - by JuergenKress

  Some of the most important SOA design patterns that we have successfully applied in projects will be described in this article. These include the Compensation pattern and the UI mediator pattern, the Common Data Format pattern and the Data Access pattern. All of these patterns are included in Thomas Erl's book, "SOA Design Patterns", and are presented here in detail, together with our practical experiences. We begin our "best of" SOA pattern collection with the Compensation pattern. Compensation is required in error situations in an SOA, as multiple atomic service operations cannot generally be linked with classic transactions this would violate the principle of loose coupling. An error situation of this sort will occur, particularly if service operations are combined into processes or new services during orchestration or by applying the Composite pattern, and the transaction bracket has to be expanded as a result. We need mechanisms to undo the effects of individual services (the status changes in the overall system) and to ensure that a consistent system state is maintained at all times, so as to preserve system integrity. For the Compensation pattern, we would like to address the following questions: Why is compensation important in relation to SOA? How is the topic of compensation linked with the topic of transactions? What are the challenges with regard to compensation... Read the full article in the Service Technology Magazine or at OTN. Share your comments and feedback on the Industrial SOA series by using the hashtag #industrialsoa. Missed an article of the Industrial SOA series visit the overview at OTN. SOA & BPM Partner Community For regular information on Oracle SOA Suite become a member in the SOA & BPM Partner Community for registration please visit www.oracle.com/goto/emea/soa (OPN account required) If you need support with your account please contact the Oracle Partner Business Center. Blog Twitter LinkedIn Facebook Wiki Mix Forum Technorati Tags: Industrial SOA,SOA,SOA Service Compensation,Community,Oracle SOA,Oracle BPM,OPN,Jürgen Kress

  Read the article

• Information Spilling Across Object Boundaries

  - by Winston Ewert

  Many times my business objects tend to have situations where information needs to cross object boundaries too often. When doing OO, we want information to be in one object and as much as possible all code dealing with that information should be in that object. However, business rules do not follow this principle giving me trouble. As an example suppose that we have an Order which has a number of OrderItems which refers to an InventoryItem which has a price. I invoke Order.GetTotal() which sums the result of OrderItem.GetPrice() which multiples a quantity by InventoryItem.GetPrice(). So far so good. But then we find out that some items are sold with a two for one deal. We can handle this by having OrderItem.GetPrice() do something like InventoryItem.GetPrice( quantity ) and letting InventoryItem deal with this. However, then we find out that the two-for-one deal only lasts for a particular time period. This time period needs to be based on the date of the order. Now we change OrderItem.GetPrice() to be InventoryItem.GetPrice( quatity, order.GetDate() ) But then we need to support different prices depending on how long the customer has been in the system: InventoryItem.GetPrice( quantity, order.GetDate(), order.GetCustomer() ) But then it turns out that the two-for-one deals apply not just to buying multiple of the same inventory item but multiple for any item in a InventoryCategory. At this point we throw up our hands and just give the InventoryItem the order item and allow it to travel over the object reference graph via accessors to get the information its needs: InventoryItem.GetPrice( this ) TL;DR I want to have coupling in objects, but business rules often force me to access information from all over the place in order to make particular decisions. Are there good techniques for dealing with this? Do others find the same problem?

  Read the article

• How do you explain to an "agile" team that they still need to plan the software they write?

  - by user23157

  This week at work I got agiled yet again. Having gone through the standard agile, TDD, shared ownership, ad hoc development methodology of never planning anything beyond a few user stories on a piece of card, verbally chewing the cud over the technicallities of a 3rd party integration ad nauseam without ever doing any real thinking or due dilligence and architecturally coupling all production code to the first test that comes into anyone's head for the past few months we reach the end of a release cycle and lo and behold the main externally visible feature that we have been developing is too slow to use, buggy, becoming labyrinthinly complex and completely inflexible. During this process "spikes" were done but never documented and not a single architectural design was ever produced (there was no FS, so what the hell eh, if you don't know what you are developing, how can you plan or research it?) - the project passed from pair to pair, each of whom only ever focused on a single user story at a time and well the result was inevitable. To resolve this I went off the radar, went (the dreaded) waterfall, planned, coded and basically didn't swap off the pair and tried as much as I could to work alone - focusing on solid architecture and specifications rather than unit tests which will come later once everything is pinned down. The code is now much better and is actually totally usable, flexible and fast. Certain people seem to have really resented me doing this and have gone out of their way to sabotage my efforts (possibly unconsciously) because it goes against the holy process of agile. So how do you, as a developer, explain to the team that it is not "un-agile" to plan their work, and how do you fit planning into the agile process? (I'm not talking about the IPM; I'm talking about sitting down with a problem and sketching out an end-to-end design that says how a problem should be solved in sufficient detail that anyone who works on the problem knows what architecture and patterns they should be using and where the new code should integrate into existing code)

  Read the article

• What's the best practice to do SOA exception handling?

  - by sun1991

  Here's some interesting debate going on between me and my colleague when coming to handle SOA exceptions: On one side, I support what Juval Lowy said in Programming WCF Services 3rd Edition: As stated at the beginning of this chapter, it is a common illusion that clients care about errors or have anything meaningful to do when they occur. Any attempt to bake such capabilities into the client creates an inordinate degree of coupling between the client and the object, raising serious design questions. How could the client possibly know more about the error than the service, unless it is tightly coupled to it? What if the error originated several layers below the service—should the client be coupled to those lowlevel layers? Should the client try the call again? How often and how frequently? Should the client inform the user of the error? Is there a user? By having all service exceptions be indistinguishable from one another, WCF decouples the client from the service. The less the client knows about what happened on the service side, the more decoupled the interaction will be. On the other side, here's what my colleague suggest: I believe it’s simply incorrect, as it does not align with best practices in building a service oriented architecture and it ignores the general idea that there are problems that users are able to recover from, such as not keying a value correctly. If we considered only systems exceptions, perhaps this idea holds, but systems exceptions are only part of the exception domain. User recoverable exceptions are the other part of the domain and are likely to happen on a regular basis. I believe the correct way to build a service oriented architecture is to map user recoverable situations to checked exceptions, then to marshall each checked exception back to the client as a unique exception that client application programmers are able to handle appropriately. Marshall all runtime exceptions back to the client as a system exception, along with the stack trace so that it is easy to troubleshoot the root cause. I'd like to know what you think about this? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Empty interface to combine multiple interfaces

  - by user1109519

  Suppose you have two interfaces: interface Readable { public void read(); } interface Writable { public void write(); } In some cases the implementing objects can only support one of these but in a lot of cases the implementations will support both interfaces. The people who use the interfaces will have to do something like: // can't write to it without explicit casting Readable myObject = new MyObject(); // can't read from it without explicit casting Writable myObject = new MyObject(); // tight coupling to actual implementation MyObject myObject = new MyObject(); None of these options is terribly convenient, even more so when considering that you want this as a method parameter. One solution would be to declare a wrapping interface: interface TheWholeShabam extends Readable, Writable {} But this has one specific problem: all implementations that support both Readable and Writable have to implement TheWholeShabam if they want to be compatible with people using the interface. Even though it offers nothing apart from the guaranteed presence of both interfaces. Is there a clean solution to this problem or should I go for the wrapper interface? UPDATE It is in fact often necessary to have an object that is both readable and writable so simply seperating the concerns in the arguments is not always a clean solution. UPDATE2 (extracted as answer so it's easier to comment on) UPDATE3 Please beware that the primary usecase for this is not streams (although they too must be supported). Streams make a very specific distinction between input and output and there is a clear separation of responsibilities. Rather, think of something like a bytebuffer where you need one object you can write to and read from, one object that has a very specific state attached to it. These objects exist because they are very useful for some things like asynchronous I/O, encodings,...

  Read the article

• Best Architecture for ASP.NET WebForms Application

  - by stack man

  I have written an ASP.NET WebForms portal for a client. The project has kind of evolved rather than being properly planned and structured from the beginning. Consequently, all the code is mashed together within the same project and without any layers. The client is now happy with the functionality, so I would like to refactor the code such that I will be confident about releasing the project. As there seems to be many differing ways to design the architecture, I would like some opinions about the best approach to take. FUNCTIONALITY The portal allows administrators to configure HTML templates. Other associated "partners" will be able to display these templates by adding IFrame code to their site. Within these templates, customers can register and purchase products. An API has been implemented using WCF allowing external companies to interface with the system also. An Admin section allows Administrators to configure various functionality and view reports for each partner. The system sends out invoices and email notifications to customers. CURRENT ARCHITECTURE It is currently using EF4 to read/write to the database. The EF objects are used directly within the aspx files. This has facilitated rapid development while I have been writing the site but it is probably unacceptable to keep it like that as it is tightly coupling the db with the UI. Specific business logic has been added to partial classes of the EF objects. QUESTIONS The goal of refactoring will be to make the site scalable, easily maintainable and secure. 1) What kind of architecture would be best for this? Please describe what should be in each layer, whether I should use DTO's / POCO / Active Record pattern etc. 2) Is there a robust way to auto-generate DTO's / BOs so that any future enhancements will be simple to implement despite the extra layers? 3) Would it be beneficial to convert the project from WebForms to MVC?

  Read the article

• What is logical cohesion, and why is it bad or undesirable?

  - by Matt Fenwick

  From the c2wiki page on coupling & cohesion: Cohesion (interdependency within module) strength/level names : (from worse to better, high cohesion is good) Coincidental Cohesion : (Worst) Module elements are unrelated Logical Cohesion : Elements perform similar activities as selected from outside module, i.e. by a flag that selects operation to perform (see also CommandObject). i.e. body of function is one huge if-else/switch on operation flag Temporal Cohesion : operations related only by general time performed (i.e. initialization() or FatalErrorShutdown?()) Procedural Cohesion : Elements involved in different but sequential activities, each on different data (usually could be trivially split into multiple modules along linear sequence boundaries) Communicational Cohesion : unrelated operations except need same data or input Sequential Cohesion : operations on same data in significant order; output from one function is input to next (pipeline) Informational Cohesion: a module performs a number of actions, each with its own entry point, with independent code for each action, all performed on the same data structure. Essentially an implementation of an abstract data type. i.e. define structure of sales_region_table and its operators: init_table(), update_table(), print_table() Functional Cohesion : all elements contribute to a single, well-defined task, i.e. a function that performs exactly one operation get_engine_temperature(), add_sales_tax() (emphasis mine). I don't fully understand the definition of logical cohesion. My questions are: what is logical cohesion? Why does it get such a bad rap (2nd worst kind of cohesion)?

  Read the article

• Extract all related class type aliasing and enum into one file or not

  - by Chen OT

  I have many models in my project, and some other classes just need the class declaration and pointer type aliasing. It does not need to know the class definition, so I don't want to include the model header file. I extract all the model's declaration into one file to let every classes reference one file. model_forward.h class Cat; typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> CatPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> CatConstPointerType; class Dog; typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> DogPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> DogConstPointerType; class Fish; typedef std::shared_ptr<Fish> FishPointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Fish> FishConstPointerType; enum CatType{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} enum DogType{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} enum FishType{SHARK, OCTOPUS, SALMON} Is it acceptable practice? Should I make every unit, which needs a class declaration, depends on one file? Does it cause high coupling? Or I should put these pointer type aliasing and enum definition inside the class back? cat.h class Cat { typedef std::shared_ptr<Cat> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Cat> ConstPointerType; enum Type{RED_CAT, YELLOW_CAT, GREEN_CAT, PURPLE_CAT} ... }; dog.h class Dog { typedef std::shared_ptr<Dog> PointerType; typedef std::shared_ptr<const Dog> ConstPointerType; enum Type{HATE_CAT_DOG, HUSKY, GOLDEN_RETRIEVER} ... } fish.h class Fish { ... }; Any suggestion will be helpful.

  Read the article

• Is a Mission Oriented Architecture (MOA) a better way to describe things than SOA?

  - by Brian Langbecker

  I might sound like a troll, but I would like to seriously understand this deeper. The place I work at has started to use the term MOA, versus SOA as we believe it drives more clarity and want to compare it to the true goals of SOA. A Mission Oriented Architecture is an approach whereby an application is broken down into various business mission elements, with the database, file assets, batch and real time functionality all tightly coupled in terms of delivering that piece of the functionality. The mission allows the developers to focus on a specific piece of functionality to get it right, and to build it with the ability for that piece to scale as an independent entity within the overall application. By tightly coupling the data, file assets and business logic you achieve the goals of working on a very large problem in bite size pieces. Some definitions of SOA mix it up with what is essentially a method call on a web service versus a true "service". As an architect, I have always found it fun getting everyone on the same page regarding SOA. Is it better to call it a "mission" versus a "service"?

  Read the article

• TransformXml Task locks config file identified in Source attribute

  - by alexhildyard

  As background: the TransformXml MSBuild task is typically invoked in a custom build step to mark up a web.config file with per-environment configuration; its flexible directives offer highly granular control over the insertion, removal, substitution and transformation of existing configuration hierarchies. For those using the TransformXML task (typically in a Web Deployment Project) I raised an issue against Visual Studio 2010, in which the file handle on the input file was not released, meaning that following transformation the source file remained locked. As a result, the best way to transform a file was first to rename it, transform it, and then copy it back, leaving the "locked" file to be freed up later.I just heard today that this has now been resolved in Visual Studio 2012 RTM. That's good news, because Web Config Transformations offer a lot. An intelligent, automated build process will swap in the relevant transform(s), making it much easier to synthesise the Developer and Build server builds. This makes for a simpler and more exemplary build process, and with the tighter coupling comes a correspondingly quicker response to Developmental change.Oh, and don't forget -- it isn't just web.configs you can transform. You can transform app.configs, or indeed any XML file that honours the task's schema and hierarchical rules.

  Read the article

• Correct way to use Farseer Physics in XNA

  - by user1640602

  I am using Farseer Physics for my 2D sidescroller game and I'm not sure how to proceed with it. I currently have a Sprite class (handles nothing but graphics), a GameObject class (contains specific object info like hit points), a World object which contains the list of Bodies, and a Level object which contains all of these objects. Originally I was trying to keep track of the Sprites, GameObjects, and Bodies separately because I felt that would provide loose coupling but it quickly became a headache. So my new idea was to add a Sprite member to the GameObject class but I'm still not sure how to maintain the Bodies because they have to communicate with GameObject. Specifically, my issue is this: The position of the Body is used to draw the Sprite inside of the Level. In order to do that I would have to maintain a link between GameObjects and Bodies. Is this correct or is there a better way to architect my game? If any of this is unclear please ask and I'll try to clarify. Thank you in advance for any help.

  Read the article

• How to implement behavior in a component-based game architecture?

  - by ghostonline

  I am starting to implement player and enemy AI in a game, but I am confused about how to best implement this in a component-based game architecture. Say I have a following player character that can be stationary, running and swinging a sword. A player can transit to the swing sword state from both the stationary and running state, but then the swing must be completed before the player can resume standing or running around. During the swing, the player cannot walk around. As I see it, I have two implementation approaches: Create a single AI-component containing all player logic (either decoupled from the actual component or embedded as a PlayerAIComponent). I can easily how to enforce the state restrictions without creating coupling between individual components making up the player entity. However, the AI-component cannot be broken up. If I have, for example, an enemy that can only stand and walk around or only walks around and occasionally swing a sword, I have to create new AI-components. Break the behavior up in components, each identifying a specific state. I then get a StandComponent, WalkComponent and SwingComponent. To enforce the transition rules, I have to couple each component. SwingComponent must disable StandComponent and WalkComponent for the duration of the swing. When I have an enemy that only stands around, swinging a sword occasionally, I have to make sure SwingComponent only disables WalkComponent if it is present. Although this allows for better mix-and-matching components, it can lead to a maintainability nightmare as each time a dependency is added, the existing components must be updated to play nicely with the new requirements the dependency places on the character. The ideal situation would be that a designer can build new enemies/players by dragging components into a container, without having to touch a single line of engine or script code. Although I am not sure script coding can be avoided, I want to keep it as simple as possible. Summing it all up: Should I lob all AI logic into one component or break up each logic state into separate components to create entity variants more easily?

  Read the article

• How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

  - by Ophir Yoktan

  I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

  Read the article

• How to handle notifications to several partial views of the same model?

  - by Seki

  I am working on refactoring an old simulation of a Turing machine. The application uses a class that contains the state and the logic of program execution, and several panels to display the tape representation and show the state, messages, and the GUI controls (start, stop, program listing, ...). I would like to refactor it using the MVC architecture that was not used originaly: the Frame is the only way to get access to the different panels and there is also a strong coupling between the "engine" class and the GUI updates in the way of frame.displayPanel.state.setText("halted"); or frame.outputPanel.messages.append("some thing"); It looks to me that I should put the state related code into an observable model class and make the different panels observers. My problem is that the java Observable class only provides a global notification to the Observers, while I would prefer not to refresh every Observers everytime, but only when the part that specificaly observe has changed. I am thinking of implementing myself several vectors of listeners (for the state / position, for the output messages, ...) but I feel like reinventing the wheel. I though also about adding some flags that the observers could check like isNewMessageAvailable(), hasTapeMoved(), etc but it sounds also approximative design. BTW, is it ok to keep the fetch / execute loop into the model or should I move it in another place? We can think in a theorical ideal way as I am completely revamping this small application.

  Read the article

• CodePlex Daily Summary for Monday, April 09, 2012

  CodePlex Daily Summary for Monday, April 09, 2012Popular ReleasesStyleCop+: StyleCop+ 1.8: Built over StyleCop 4.7.17.0 According to http://stylecop.codeplex.com/workitem/7156, it should be the last version which is released without new features and only for compatibility reasons. Do not forget to Unblock the file after downloading (more details) Stay tuned!Path Copy Copy: 10.1: This release addresses the following work items: 11357 11358 11359 This release is a recommended upgrade, especially for users who didn't install the 10.0.1 version.ExtAspNet: ExtAspNet v3.1.3: ExtAspNet - ?? ExtJS ??? ASP.NET 2.0 ???，????? AJAX ?????????? ExtAspNet ????? ExtJS ??? ASP.NET 2.0 ???，????? AJAX ??????????。 ExtAspNet ??????? JavaScript，?? CSS，?? UpdatePanel，?? ViewState，?? WebServices ???????。 ??????: IE 7.0, Firefox 3.6, Chrome 3.0, Opera 10.5, Safari 3.0+ ????：Apache License 2.0 (Apache) ??：http://extasp.net/ ??：http://bbs.extasp.net/ ??：http://extaspnet.codeplex.com/ ??：http://sanshi.cnblogs.com/ ????： +2012-04-08 v3.1.3 -??Language="zh_TW"?JS???BUG（??）。 +?D...Coding4Fun Tools: Coding4Fun.Phone.Toolkit v1.5.5: New Controls ChatBubble ChatBubbleTextBox OpacityToggleButton New Stuff TimeSpan languages added: RU, SK, CS Expose the physics math from TimeSpanPicker Image Stretch now on buttons Bug Fixes Layout fix so RoundToggleButton and RoundButton are exactly the same Fix for ColorPicker when set via code behind ToastPrompt bug fix with OnNavigatedTo Toast now adjusts its layout if the SIP is up Fixed some issues with Expression Blend supportHarness - Internet Explorer Automation: Harness 2.0.3: support the operation fo frameset, frame and iframe Add commands SwitchFrame GetUrl GoBack GoForward Refresh SetTimeout GetTimeout Rename commands GetActiveWindow to GetActiveBrowser SetActiveWindow to SetActiveBrowser FindWindowAll to FindBrowser NewWindow to NewBrowser GetMajorVersion to GetVersionBetter Explorer: Better Explorer 2.0.0.861 Alpha: - fixed new folder button operation not work well in some situations - removed some unnecessary code like subclassing that is not needed anymore - Added option to make Better Exlorer default (at least for WIN+E operations) - Added option to enable file operation replacements (like Terracopy) to work with Better Explorer - Added some basic usability to "Share" button - Other fixesText Designer Outline Text: Version 2 Preview 2: Added Fake 3D demos for C++ MFC, C# Winform and C# WPFLightFarsiDictionary - ??????? ??? ?????/???????: LightFarsiDictionary - v1: LightFarsiDictionary - v1WPF Application Framework (WAF): WPF Application Framework (WAF) 2.5.0.3: Version: 2.5.0.3 (Milestone 3): This release contains the source code of the WPF Application Framework (WAF) and the sample applications. Requirements .NET Framework 4.0 (The package contains a solution file for Visual Studio 2010) The unit test projects require Visual Studio 2010 Professional Changelog Legend: [B] Breaking change; [O] Marked member as obsolete [O] WAF: Mark the StringBuilderExtensions class as obsolete because the AppendInNewLine method can be replaced with string.Jo...GeoMedia PostGIS data server: PostGIS GDO 1.0.1.2: This is a new version of GeoMeda PostGIS data server which supports user rights. It means that only those feature classes, which the current user has rights to select, are visible in GeoMedia. Issues fixed in this release Fixed problem with renaming and deleting feature classes - IMPORTANT! - the gfeatures view must be recreated so that this issue is completely fixed. The attached script "GFeaturesView2.sql" can be used to accomplish this task. Another way is to drop and recreate the metadat...SkyDrive Connector for SharePoint: SkyDrive Connector for SharePoint: Fixed a few bugs pertaining to live authentication Removed dependency on Shared Documents Removed CallBack web part propertyClosedXML - The easy way to OpenXML: ClosedXML 0.65.2: Aside from many bug fixes we now have Conditional Formatting The conditional formatting was sponsored by http://www.bewing.nl (big thanks) New on v0.65.1 Fixed issue when loading conditional formatting with default values for icon sets New on v0.65.2 Fixed issue loading conditional formatting Improved inserts performanceLiberty: v3.2.0.0 Release 4th April 2012: Change Log-Added -Halo 3 support (invincibility, ammo editing) -Halo 3: ODST support (invincibility, ammo editing) -The file transfer page now shows its progress in the Windows 7 taskbar -"About this build" settings page -Reach Change what an object is carrying -Reach Change which node a carried object is attached to -Reach Object node viewer and exporter -Reach Change which weapons you are carrying from the object editor -Reach Edit the weapon controller of vehicles and turrets -An error dia...MSBuild Extension Pack: April 2012: Release Blog Post The MSBuild Extension Pack April 2012 release provides a collection of over 435 MSBuild tasks. A high level summary of what the tasks currently cover includes the following: System Items: Active Directory, Certificates, COM+, Console, Date and Time, Drives, Environment Variables, Event Logs, Files and Folders, FTP, GAC, Network, Performance Counters, Registry, Services, Sound Code: Assemblies, AsyncExec, CAB Files, Code Signing, DynamicExecute, File Detokenisation, GUID’...DotNetNuke® Community Edition CMS: 06.01.05: Major Highlights Fixed issue that stopped users from creating vocabularies when the portal ID was not zero Fixed issue that caused modules configured to be displayed on all pages to be added to the wrong container in new pages Fixed page quota restriction issue in the Ribbon Bar Removed restriction that would not allow users to use a dash in page names. Now users can create pages with names like "site-map" Fixed issue that was causing the wrong container to be loaded in modules wh...51Degrees.mobi - Mobile Device Detection and Redirection: 2.1.3.1: One Click Install from NuGet Changes to Version 2.1.3.11. [assembly: AllowPartiallyTrustedCallers] has been added back into the AssemblyInfo.cs file to prevent failures with other assemblies in Medium trust environments. 2. The Lite data embedded into the assembly has been updated to include devices from December 2011. The 42 new RingMark properties will return Unknown if RingMark data is not available. Changes to Version 2.1.2.11Code Changes 1. The project is now licenced under the Mozilla...MVC Controls Toolkit: Mvc Controls Toolkit 2.0.0: Added Support for Mvc4 beta and WebApi The SafeqQuery and HttpSafeQuery IQueryable implementations that works as wrappers aroung any IQueryable to protect it from unwished queries. "Client Side" pager specialized in paging javascript data coming either from a remote data source, or from local data. LinQ like fluent javascript api to build queries either against remote data sources, or against local javascript data, with exactly the same interface. There are 3 different query objects exp...nopCommerce. Open source shopping cart (ASP.NET MVC): nopcommerce 2.50: Highlight features & improvements: • Significant performance optimization. • Allow store owners to create several shipments per order. Added a new shipping status: “Partially shipped”. • Pre-order support added. Enables your customers to place a Pre-Order and pay for the item in advance. Displays “Pre-order” button instead of “Buy Now” on the appropriate pages. Makes it possible for customer to buy available goods and Pre-Order items during one session. It can be managed on a product variant ...WiX Toolset: WiX v3.6 RC0: WiX v3.6 RC0 (3.6.2803.0) provides support for VS11 and a more stable Burn engine. For more information see Rob's blog post about the release: http://robmensching.com/blog/posts/2012/4/3/WiX-v3.6-Release-Candidate-Zero-availableSageFrame: SageFrame 2.0: Sageframe is an open source ASP.NET web development framework developed using ASP.NET 3.5 with service pack 1 (sp1) technology. It is designed specifically to help developers build dynamic website by providing core functionality common to most web applications.New ProjectsAprilSpring: Common Framework by pansq and huangghASP.Net MVC Dynamic JS/CSS Script Compression Framework: ASP.Net MVC JS and CSS dynamic script compression and composite script library. Also resolves virtual content urls in CSS files.BANews: ???????????????????，??SQL+Server2008，C#，asp.net????，??????Jquery?CSS+DIV??。??????，?????????????，????????，??????，??。Blazonisation: If have emblem of some state, but don't know anything about it, you can use this tool to resolve your problem. Controle de Campenato: Outro Projeto com alunos da Infnet onde desenvolveremos um controle de campeonato...Controle Financeiro Pessoal Web: Projeto desenvolvido com os alunos do curso Oficial da Microsoft na INFNET. Consiste em controlar as despesas e receitas durante o mes e realizar uma projeção sobre os próximos meses. Bons Estudos, Prof. Carlos PedroCoPro - The .NET Content Provisioning Framework: CoPro makes content management, localization and globalization for ASP.NET Developers easier. It provides a framework which takes care of all management and provisioning activities and the developer only has to create the content and place it on the site. It is developed in C#.cppERF: Class ERF function. Test on VC++ 2008 express, and cygwin.Dev Studio 17 Web-Based FTP Client: Dev Studio 17 Web-Based FTP Client is a web based ftp application built using asp.net, c#.EasyCRMNet: EasyCRMNetEnterpriseLibrary Azure Backing Store: Most developers face difficulties in migrating the application, which is using caching block of Enterprise library, to azure due to unavailability of app fabric cache backing store for Enterprise Library. This library provides an app fabric backing store for enterprise library.Event Aggregator: One of the key aspects in application design is managing dependencies between modules. Good architecture might begin to suffer from strong coupling as long as the project grows. All this affects further development by making it harder to change modules (a change in one module usually forces a ripple effect of changes in other modules), also strongly coupled modules are harder to reuse and test. Message coupling is a good choice in developing loosely coupled architecture. This is the looses...FarhadYazdan-Panah Personal Repsitory: A place for backupFluent Assertions MVC: MVC Extensions for Fluent Assertions library. Source Code is on GitHub: https://github.com/CaseyBurns/FluentAssertions.MVCGboot: GtalkBotGetPicture: GetPicture is a project that get some pictures at a website.It is not good,just use to study.gmfbridge: clone for gmfbridge http://www.gdcl.co.uk/gmfbridge/GoodStore: ??????????，??B/S??，asp.net?sqlserver???，???????，?????????。。。JSLint for Resharper: Adds highlighting of JSLint validation errors to Resharper. kiemtien: Alpha state website, very unstable.nuIDE Kinect Prototype (Experimental): Prototype for Kinect-integrated Visual Studio extension concept. (Not yet alpha - throw away code)PB-LOG-Quick and easy XML logger for .NET: PB-LOG is a quick and easy XML logger for all kink of .NET application. You can insert log associated to a user. There're 4 kind of log: Error, Info, Warning, Event. It's developed in C# 4. There's also a PB-LOG for WP7.PB-LOG-WP7-Quick and easy XML logger for Windows Phone 7: PB-LOG is a quick and easy XML logger for all Windows Phone 7. You can insert log associated to a user. There're 4 kind of log: Error, Info, Warning, Event. It's developed in C# 4.Persian_Calendar_for_Microsoft_Office: "Persian_Calendar_for_Microsoft_Office" makes it easier for Office user group to do their tasks according to time-sheets in IRAN. You'll no longer have to depend on other forms of calendar. It would be developed in any programming language esp C#.Projeto Agenda FPU: Projeto AgendaPS Framework: PS.Framework is an Application Framework to simplify the developement of .NET Applications. It's containing many helpfull classes and functions e.g. an RemotingInterface to simplify the use of .NET Remoting.Quizzer123: Awesome application for quizzes and tests!SharePoint 2010 Automatic Content Database Selection: This solution for SharePoint 2010 automatically selects the smallest content database when you create a new site collection in a web application.SIToFb2: samizdat to bf2 converterSmart Logger: SmartLogger is a web service that can consume exceptions thrown from client applications. The exceptions can be categorized based on severity, applications and exception time stamp. It also includes a search feature to drill down the exceptions log based on search criteria. The release 1.0 will include logging exceptions with search feature. Adding new applications and user right management will follow.Sync Sync: [image:365572] A SharePoint ETL and migration toolTestCuttingStockUsingSolverFoundation: using solver foundation from msft to solve civ e 606 group assignment 2, the cutting stock problem.Vote: ?，???????????????！??，????，?????！WebFurniture: Web-?????????? ??? ?????????????? ????????? ???????yammyy2: yammyy2 zhongjh: ?????????，???????。

  Read the article

• Winforms role based security limitations

  - by muhan

  I'm implementing role based security using Microsoft's membership and role provider. The theoretical problem I'm having is that you implement a specific role on a method such as: [PrincipalPermissionAttribute(SecurityAction.Demand, Role="Supervisor")] private void someMethod() {} What if at some point down the road, I don't want Supervisors to access someMethod() anymore? Wouldn't I have to change the source code to make that change? Am I missing something? It seems there has to be some way to abstract the relationship between the supervisors role and the method so I can create a way in the application to change this coupling of role permission to method. Any insight or direction would be appreciated. Thank you.

  Read the article

• [Principles] Concrete Type or Interface for method return type?

  - by SDReyes

  In general terms, 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

• ASP.NET MVC vs. ASP.NET 4.0

  - by CodeMonkey

  I watched this webcast recently, and I got the sense that a lot of the "cool stuff" from ASP.NET MVC is getting pulled back into the ASP.NET framework. At the moment I'm setting the ground-work for a project at my company using ASP.NET MVC, but after watching this, I'm beginning to wonder if that's the right choice, and whether it would behoove me to wait for ASP.NET 4.0. I realize ASP.NET MVC 2.0 is getting close to an actual release. If High-Testability, loose coupling, and having Full control of our HTML are top priorities, which should I choose, ASP.NET 4.0 or ASP.NET MVC?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC2 Data Access Layer

  - by Paul

  For a small/medium sized project I'm trying to figure out what is the 'ideal' way to have a domain layer and data access layer. My opinions on coupling tend to be more towards the view that the domain models should not be tightly coupled with the database layer, in other words the data access layer shouldn't actually know anything about the domain objects. I've been looking at Linq-to-sql and it wants to use its own models that it creates, and so it ends up VERY tightly coupled. Whilst I love the way you use linq-to-sql in code I really don't like the way it wants to make its own domain objects. What are some alternatives that I should consider? I tried use NHibernate but I did not like the way I had to use to query and get different objects. I honestly love the syntax and way you use linq, I just don't want it to be so tightly coupled to domain objects.

  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 add-in/workbench framework is the best .NET alternative to Eclipse RCP?

  - by Winston Fassett

  I'm looking for a plugin-based application framework that is comparable to the Eclipse Plugin Framework, which to my simple mind consists of: a core plugin management framework (Equinox / OSGI), which provides the ability to declare extension endpoints and then discover and load plugins that service those endpoints. (this is different than Dependency Injection, but admittedly the difference is subtle - configuration is highly de-centralized, there are versioning concerns, it might involve an online plugin repository, and most importantly to me, it should be easy for the user to add plugins without needing to know anything about the underlying architecture / config files) many layers of plugins that provide a basic workbench shell with concurrency support, commands, preference sheets, menus, toolbars, key bindings, etc. That is just scratching the surface of the RCP, which itself is meant to serve as the foundation of your application, which you build by writing / assembling even more plugins. Here's what I've gleaned from the internet in the past couple of days... As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the .NET world that remotely approaches the robustness and maturity of the Eclipse RCP for Java but there are several contenders that do either #1 or #2 pretty well. (I should also mention that I have not made a final decision on WinForms vs WPF, so I'm also trying to understand the level of UI coupling in any candidate framework. I'm also wondering about platform coupling and source code licensing) I must say that the open-source stuff is generally less-documented but easier to understand, while the MS stuff typically has more documentation but is less accessible, so that with many of the MS technologies, I'm left wondering what they actually do, in a practical sense. These are the libraries I have found: SharpDevelop The first thing I looked at was SharpDevelop, which does both #1 and also #2 in a basic way (no insult to SharpDevelop, which is admirable - I just mean more basic than Eclipse RCP). However, SharpDevelop is an application more than a framework, and there are basic assumptions and limitations there (i.e. being somewhat coupled to WinForms). Still, there are some articles on CodeProject explaining how to use it as the foundation for an application. System.Addins It appears that System.Addins is meant to provide a robust add-in loading framework, with some sophisticated options for loading assemblies with varying levels of trusts and even running the out of process. It appears to be primarily code-based, and pretty code-heavy, with lots of assemblies that serve to insulate against versioning issues., using Guidance Automation to generate a good deal of code. So far I haven't found many System.AddIns articles that illustrate how it could be used to build something like an Eclipse RCP, and many people seem to be wringing their hands about its complexity. Mono.Addins It appears that Mono.Addins was influenced by System.Addins, SharpDevelop, and MonoDevelop. It seems to provide the basics from System.Addins, with less sophisticated options for plugin loading, but more simplicity, with attribute-based registration, XML manifests, and the infrastructure for online plugin repositories. It has a pretty good FAQ and documentation, as well as a fairly robust set of examples that really help paint a picture of how to develop an architecture like that of SharpDevelop or Eclipse. The examples use GTK for UI, but the framework itself is not coupled to GTK. So it appears to do #1 (add-in loading) pretty well and points the way to #2 (workbench framework). It appears that Mono.Addins was derived from MonoDevelop, but I haven't actually looked at whether MonoDevelop provides a good core workbench framework. Managed Extensibility Framework This is what everyone's talking about at the moment, and it's slowly getting clearer what it does, but I'm still pretty fuzzy, even after reading several posts on SO. The official word is that it "can live side-by-side" with System.Addins. However, it doesn't reference it and it appears to reproduce some of its functionality. It seems to me, then, that it is a simpler, more accessible alternative to System.Addins. It appears to be more like Mono.Addins in that it provides attribute-based wiring. It provides "catalogs" that can be attribute-based or directory-based. It does not seem to provide any XML or manifest-based wiring. So far I haven't found much documentation and the examples seem to be kind of "magical" and more reminiscent of attribute-based DI, despite the clarifications that MEF is not a DI container. Its license just got opened up, but it does reference WindowsBase -- not sure if that means it's coupled to Windows. Acropolis I'm not sure what this is. Is it MEF, or something that is still coming? Composite Application Blocks There are WPF and Winforms Composite Application blocks that seem to provide much more of a workbench framework. I have very little experience with these but they appear to rely on Guidance Automation quite a bit are obviously coupled with the UI layers. There are a few examples of combining MEF with these application blocks. I've done the best I could to answer my own question here, but I'm really only scratching the surface, and I don't have experience with any of these frameworks. Hopefully some of you can add more detail about the frameworks you have experience with. It would be great if we could end up with some sort of comparison matrix.

  Read the article

• C++ Template Classes Circular Dependency Problem

  - by TomWij

  We have two classes: template<typename T, typename Size, typename Stack, typename Sparse> class Matrix and template<typename T, typename Size> class Iterator Matrix should be able to return begin and end iterators and Iterator will keep a referrence to the Matrix to access the elements via it's interface. We don't want Iterator to depend on the internal storage of the Matrix to prevent coupling. How can we solve this cyclic dependency problem? (The internal Storage class has the same template parameters as the Matrix class and the same access procedures as the Matrix itself)

  Read the article

• What should I consider when deploying a new web farm?

  - by tsilb

  My web app has been chugging along just great in Production for years with one App server and one Web server. Now we're moving to a multi-server environment with 2 App and 3 Web servers. I have enough time to make changes before the go-live. As a Developer, what considerations should I take into account from coding, deployment, and architectural/ecosystem management perspectives? Already on my list: Remove tight-coupling between servers Applicable files (i.e. downloadables) stored in IMAGE fields in SQL instead of files on app server Deployment: Take out node out of the farm at a time

  Read the article

• Is a class that is hard to unit test badly designed?

  - by Extrakun

  I am now doing unit testing on an application which was written over the year, before I started to do unit-testing diligently. I realized that the classes I wrote are hard to unit test, for the following reasons: Relies on loading data from database. Which means I have to setup a row in the table just to run the unit test (and I am not testing database capabilities). Requires a lot of other external classes just to get the class I am testing to its initial state. On the whole, there don't seem to be anything wrong with the design except that it is too tightly coupled (which by itself is a bad thing). I figure that if I have written automated test cases with each of the class, hence ensuring that I don't heap extra dependencies or coupling for the class to work, the class might be better designed. Does this reason holds water? What are your experiences?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >