Search Results

Search found 5483 results on 220 pages for 'logic artist'.

Page 6/220 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Splitting Logic, Data, Layout and "Hacks"

    - by fjdumont
    Sure, we all heard of programming patterns such as MVVM, MVC and such. But that isn't really what I'm looking into as Layout, Data and Logic is already pretty much split up (XML-Layout markup, Database, insert your language of choice here). The platform I am developing for is hard to maintain over the updated versions and older OSes. The project significantly grew up over the last few months and dealing with different platform versions really is a pain. For example simply disabling an user interface control for all existing versions took me around 40 lines of code in the logic layer, wrangling around with invocation, delegation, singletons that provide UI handling and so on. Is there a clean way to keep track of those "hacks" by maybe excluding it into separate classes or even packages? Should I overwrite existing framework code in order to handle my requirements correctly? If so, does that concept have a name?

    Read the article

  • How should I design a correct OO design in case of a Business-logic wide operation

    - by Mithir
    EDIT: Maybe I should ask the question in a different way. in light of ammoQ's comment, I realize that I've done something like suggested which is kind of a fix and it is fine by me. But I still want to learn for the future, so that if I develop new code for operations similar to this, I can design it correctly from the start. So, if I got the following characteristics: The relevant input is composed from data which is connected to several different business objects All the input data is validated and cross-checked Attempts are made in order to insert the data to the DB All this is just a single operation from Business side prospective, meaning all of the cross checking and validations are just side effects. I can't think of any other way but some sort of Operator/Coordinator kind of Object which activates the entire procedure, but then I fall into a Functional-Decomposition kind of code. so is there a better way in doing this? Original Question In our system we have many complex operations which involve many validations and DB activities. One of the main Business functionality could have been designed better. In short, there were no separation of layers, and the code would only work from the scenario in which it was first designed at, and now there were more scenarios (like requests from an API or from other devices) So I had to redesign. I found myself moving all the DB code to objects which acts like Business to DB objects, and I've put all the business logic in an Operator kind of a class, which I've implemented like this: First, I created an object which will hold all the information needed for the operation let's call it InformationObject. Then I created an OperatorObject which will take the InformationObject as a parameter and act on it. The OperatorObject should activate different objects and validate or check for existence or any scenario in which the business logic is compromised and then make the operation according to the information on the InformationObject. So my question is - Is this kind of implementation correct? PS, this Operator only works on a single Business-wise Operation.

    Read the article

  • looking for a short explanation of fuzzy logic

    - by user613326
    Well i got the idea that basics of fuzzy logic are not that hard to grasp. And i got the feeling that someone might explain it to me in like 30 minutes. Just like i understand neural networks and am able to re-create the famous Xor problem. And go just beyond it and create 3 layer networks of x nodes. I'd like to understand fuzzy till a similar usefully level, in c# language. However the problem is face, I'd like to get concept right however i see many websites who include lots of errors in their basic explaining. Like for example showing pictures and use different numbers as shown in pictures to calculate, as if lots of people just copied stuff without noticing what they write down. While others for me go to deep in their math notation) To me that's very annoying to learn from. For me there is no need to re-invent wheel; Aforge already got a fuzzy logic framework. So what i am looking for are some good examples, good examples like how the neural XOR problem is solved. Is there anyone such a instructional resource out there; do you know a web page, or YouTube where it is shortly explained, what would you recommend me ? Note this article comes close; but it just doesnt nail it for me. After that i downloaded a bunch of free PDF's but most are academic and hard to read for me (i'm not English and dont have a special math degree). (i've been looking around a lot for this, good starter material about it is hard to find).

    Read the article

  • Documenting mathematical logic in code

    - by Kiril Raychev
    Sometimes, although not often, I have to include math logic in my code. The concepts used are mostly very simple, but the resulting code is not - a lot of variables with unclear purpose, and some operations with not so obvious intent. I don't mean that the code is unreadable or unmaintainable, just that it's waaaay harder to understand than the actual math problem. I try to comment the parts which are hardest to understand, but there is the same problem as in just coding them - text does not have the expressive power of math. I am looking for a more efficient and easy to understand way of explaining the logic behind some of the complex code, preferably in the code itself. I have considered TeX - writing the documentation and generating it separately from the code. But then I'd have to learn TeX, and the documentation will not be in the code itself. Another thing I thought of is taking a picture of the mathematical notations, equations and diagrams written on paper/whiteboard, and including it in javadoc. Is there a simpler and clearer way? P.S. Giving descriptive names(timeOfFirstEvent instead of t1) to the variables actually makes the code more verbose and even harder too read.

    Read the article

  • Grails: Duplicates & unique constraint validation

    - by rukoche
    OK here is stripped down version of what I have in my app Artist domain: class Artist { String name Date lastMined def artistService static transients = ['artistService'] static hasMany = [events: Event] static constraints = { name(unique: true) lastMined(nullable: true) } def mine() { artistService.mine(this) } } Event domain: class Event { String name String details String country String town String place String url String date static belongsTo = [Artist] static hasMany = [artists: Artist] static constraints = { name(unique: true) url(unique: true) } } ArtistService: class ArtistService { def results = [ [ name:"name", details:"details", country:"country", town:"town", place:"place", url:"url", date:"date" ] ] def mine(Artist artist) { results << results[0] // now we have a duplicate results.each { def event = new Event(it) if (event.validate()) { if (artist.events.find{ it.name == event.name }) { log.info "grrr! valid duplicate name: ${event.name}" } artist.addToEvents(event) } } artist.lastMined = new Date() if (artist.events) { artist.save(flush: true) } } } In theory event.validate() should return false and event will not be added to artist, but it doesn't.. which results in DB exception on artist.save() Although I noticed that if duplicate event is persisted first everything works as intended. Is it bug or feature? :P

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elsewhere

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Making game constants/tables available to game logic classes/routines in a modular manner

    - by Extrakun
    Suppose I have a game where there are several predefined constants and charts (a XP chart, cost of goods and so on). Those could be defined at runtime, or load from files at start-up. The question is how should those logic routines access the constants and charts? For example, I could try using global variables, but that cause all classes relying on the variables to be tightly coupled with them.

    Read the article

  • Reuse Business Logic between Web and API

    - by fesja
    We have a website and two mobile apps that connect through an API. All the platforms do the exactly same things. Right now the structure is the following: Website. It manages models, controllers, views for the website. It also executes all background tasks. So if a user create a place, everything is executed in this code. API. It manages models, controllers and return a JSON. If a user creates a place on the mobile app, the place is created here. After, we add a background task to update other fields. This background task is executed by the Website. We are redoing everything, so it's time to improve the approach. Which is the best way to reuse the business logic so I only need to code the insert/edit/delete of the place & other actions related in just one place? Is a service oriented approach a good idea? For example: Service. It has the models and gets, adds, updates and deletes info from the DB. Website. It send the info to the service, and it renders HTML. API. It sends info to the service, and it returns JSON. Some problems I have found: More initial work? Not sure.. It can work slower. Any experience? The benefits: We only have the business logic in one place, both for web and api. It's easier to scale. We can put each piece on different servers. Other solutions Duplicate the code and be careful not to forget anything (do tests!) DUplicate some code but execute background tasks that updates the related fields and executes other things (emails, indexing...) A "small" detail is we are 1.3 person in backend, for now ;)

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elseware

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Foreach Looping Logic in SSIS

    With SSIS, it is possible to implement looping logic into SSIS's control flow in order to define a repeating workflow in a package for each member of a collection of objects. Rob Sheldon explains how to use this valuable feature of SSIS. Get smart with SQL Backup ProGet faster, smaller backups with integrated verification.Quickly and easily DBCC CHECKDB your backups. Learn more.

    Read the article

  • ADO.NET Data Services business logic processing

    a simple approach that provides business logic processing before forwarding data to the clients with ADO.NET Data Services.  read moreBy Siyamand AyubiDid 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

  • Real world example of Unification in First Order Logic?

    - by Sebi
    I know this is only part of a programming question, but at the moment, I'm doing a little bit of logic programming. One thing I still don't understand correctly is Unification in First Order Logic. I read the Wikipedia article and it is more or less clear that the purpose is searching a term that unifies two sentences... There are also examples in this article but I just don't get the point why this should be useful. Can anyone give an example with real world objects instead of A, B, C,, etc.? I hope this will help me to understand. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Exposing business logic as WCF service

    - by Oren Schwartz
    I'm working on a middle-tier project which encapsulates the business logic (uses a DAL layer, and serves a web application server [ASP.net]) of a product deployed in a LAN. The BL serves as a bunch of services and data objects that are invoked upon user action. At present times, the DAL acts as a separate application whereas the BL uses it, but is consumed by the web application as a DLL. Both the DAL and the web application are deployed on different servers inside organization, and since the BL DLL is consumed by the web application, it resides in the same server. The worst thing about exposing the BL as a DLL is that we lost track with what we expose. Deployment is not such a big issue since mostly, product versions are deployed together. Would you recommend migrating from DLL to WCF service? If so, why? Do you know anyone who had a similar experience?

    Read the article

  • How to integrate game logic in game engines

    - by MahanGM
    Recently I'm working on a 2d game engine example in .Net with C#. My main problem is that I can't figure out how I should include the game logic within the game. Currently I have a base engine which is a set of classes that they are running sub-systems like Render, Sound, Input and Core functionality. There is an editor which helps the user to add resources, build levels, write scripts and other stuffs. I came up with an idea to use Reflection and CSharpCodeProvider from my editor to compile the written code. This way I can get an executable of my product too. This way is quite well but I would like to know what's really the solution and architecture to do this. My engine's role is 2d platform. The scripting language is C# right now because I can't consist any other embeddable language for now. The game needs compilation and CSharpCodeProvider is the only way for me to do it meantime.

    Read the article

  • Networking Client Server Packet logic (How they communicate)

    - by Trixmix
    I want to know what is the logic behind server client communication through packets for a real time game. for example the server sends x packets then the client receives x packets and processes them.. Basically what is the process to keep the client and server in sync and able to receive and send packets. more in depth example of what I want to know: client step 1 wait for a packet step 2 read x packets step 3 process x packets step 4 send x packets and so on... I need to know the very basic outline of the communication. Big questions are: 1) do I send and read packets all at one time? i.e for loop though the incoming packets array list and read them all or one every server loop or what... 2) what order should I do things i.e first receive then read then process then send etc.. 3) what I asked above a step by step of what the server / client should do.. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Logic in Entity Components Systems

    - by aaron
    I'm making a game that uses an Entity/Component architecture basically a port of Artemis's framework to c++,the problem arises when I try to make a PlayerControllerComponent, my original idea was this. class PlayerControllerComponent: Component { public: virtual void update() = 0; }; class FpsPlayerControllerComponent: PlayerControllerComponent { public: void update() { //handle input } }; and have a system that updates PlayerControllerComponents, but I found out that the artemis framework does not look at sub-classes the way I thought it would. So all in all my question here is should I make the framework aware of subclasses or should I add a new Component like object that is used for logic.

    Read the article

  • What use is a Business Logic Layer (BLL)?

    - by Andrew S. Arnold
    In reading up on good practice for database applications I've frequently come across advocates of so-called "business logic layers" and I'm trying to decide if it's best for my project to use one (it's a small personal project). My issue lies in the fact that I can't think of anything for the BLL to do that the DAL can't already handle (executing queries and mapping results to objects), so my BLL just calls the DAL without doing anything itself. Maybe I'm wrong about exactly what the DAL should be doing too. But regardless, what sorts of functionality should be expected of a BLL in a database management application?

    Read the article

  • SSIS 2008 Configuration Settings Handling Logic for Variables Visualized

    - by Compudicted
    There are many articles discussing the specifics of how the configuration settings are applied including the differences between SSIS 2005 and 2008 version implementations, however this topic keeps resurfacing on MSDN’s SSIS Forum. I thought it could be useful to cover the logic aspect visually. Below is a diagram explaining the basic flow of a variable setting for a case when no parent package is involved.   As you can see the run time stage ignores any command line flags for variables already set in the config file, I realize this is not stressed enough in many publications. Besides, another interesting fact is that the command line dtexec tool is case sensitive for the portion following the package keyword, I mean if you specify your flag to set a new value for a variable like dtexec /f Package.dtsx -set \package.variables[varPkgMyDate].value;02/01/2011 (notice the lover case v in .value) You will get errors. By capitalizing the keyword the package runs successfully.

    Read the article

  • What Counts for A DBA - Logic

    - by drsql
    "There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who will always wonder why there are only two items in my list and those who will figured it out the first time they saw this very old joke."  Those readers who will give up immediately and get frustrated with me for not explaining it to them are not likely going to be great technical professionals of any sort, much less a programmer or administrator who will be constantly dealing with the common failures that make up a DBA's day.  Many of these people will stare at this like a dog staring at a traffic signal and still have no more idea of how to decipher the riddle. Without explanation they will give up, call the joke "stupid" and, feeling quite superior, walk away indignantly to their job likely flipping patties of meat-by-product. As a data professional or any programmer who has strayed  to this very data-oriented blog, you would, if you are worth your weight in air, either have recognized immediately what was going on, or felt a bit ignorant.  Your friends are chuckling over the joke, but why is it funny? Unfortunately you left your smartphone at home on the dresser because you were up late last night programming and were running late to work (again), so you will either have to fake a laugh or figure it out.  Digging through the joke, you figure out that the word "two" is the most important part, since initially the joke mentioned 10. Hmm, why did they spell out two, but not ten? Maybe 10 could be interpreted a different way?  As a DBA, this sort of logic comes into play every day, and sometimes it doesn't involve nerdy riddles or Star Wars folklore.  When you turn on your computer and get the dreaded blue screen of death, you don't immediately cry to the help desk and sit on your thumbs and whine about not being able to work. Do that and your co-workers will question your nerd-hood; I know I certainly would. You figure out the problem, and when you have it narrowed down, you call the help desk and tell them what the problem is, usually having to explain that yes, you did in fact try to reboot before calling.  Of course, sometimes humility does come in to play when you reach the end of your abilities, but the ‘end of abilities’ is not something any of us recognize readily. It is handy to have the ability to use logic to solve uncommon problems: It becomes especially useful when you are trying to solve a data-related problem such as a query performance issue, and the way that you approach things will tell your coworkers a great deal about your abilities.  The novice is likely to immediately take the approach of  trying to add more indexes or blaming the hardware. As you become more and more experienced, it becomes increasingly obvious that performance issues are a very complex topic. A query may be slow for a myriad of reasons, from concurrency issues, a poor query plan because of a parameter value (like parameter sniffing,) poor coding standards, or just because it is a complex query that is going to be slow sometimes. Some queries that you will deal with may have twenty joins and hundreds of search criteria, and it can take a lot of thought to determine what is going on.  You can usually figure out the problem to almost any query by using basic knowledge of how joins and queries work, together with the help of such things as the query plan, profiler or monitoring tools.  It is not unlikely that it can take a full day’s work to understand some queries, breaking them down into smaller queries to find a very tiny problem. Not every time will you actually find the problem, and it is part of the process to occasionally admit that the problem is random, and everything works fine now.  Sometimes, it is necessary to realize that a problem is outside of your current knowledge, and admit temporary defeat: You can, at least, narrow down the source of the problem by looking logically at all of the possible solutions. By doing this, you can satisfy your curiosity and learn more about what the actual problem was. For example, in the joke, had you never been exposed to the concept of binary numbers, there is no way you could have known that binary - 10 = decimal - 2, but you could have logically come to the conclusion that 10 must not mean ten in the context of the joke, and at that point you are that much closer to getting the joke and at least won't feel so ignorant.

    Read the article

  • How to design console application with good seperation of UI from Logic

    - by JavaSa
    Is it considered an overkill for console application to be design like MVC , MVP or N tier architecture? If not which is more common and if you can link me to simple example of it. I want to implement a tic tac toe game in console application. I have a solution which hold two projects: TicTacToeBusinessLogic (Class library project) and TicTacToeConsoleApplication (Console application project) to represent the view logic. In the TicTacToeConsoleApplication I've Program.cs class which holds the main entry point (public static void Main). Now I face a problem. I want the game to handle its own game flow so I can: Create new GameManager class (from BL) but this causing the view to directly know the BL part. So I'm a little confused how to write it in an acceptable way. Should I use delegates? Please show me a simple example.

    Read the article

  • Testing controller logic that uses ISession directly

    - by Rippo
    I have just read this blog post from Jimmy Bogard and was drawn to this comment. Where this falls down is when a component doesn’t support a given layering/architecture. But even with NHibernate, I just use the ISession directly in the controller action these days. Why make things complicated? I then commented on the post and ask this question:- My question here is what options would you have testing the controller logic IF you do not mock out the NHibernate ISession. I am curious what options we have if we utilise the ISession directly on the controller?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >