Search Results

Search found 40386 results on 1616 pages for 'object design'.

Page 6/1616 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• Structuring Access Control In Hierarchical Object Graph

  - by SB2055

  I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. Thoughts I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

  Read the article

• In database table design, how does "Virtual Goods" affect table design -- should we create an instan

  - by Jian Lin

  When we design a database table for a DVD rental company, we actually have a movie, which is an abstract idea, and a physical DVD, so for each rental, we have a many-to-many table with fields such as: TransactionID UserID DvdID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid but what about with virtual goods? For example, if we let a user rent a movie online for 3 days, we don't actually have a DVD, so we may have a table: TransactionID UserID MovieID RentedDate RentalDuration AmountPaid should we create a record for each instance of "virtual good"? For example, what if this virtual good (the movie) can be authorized to be watched on 3 devices (with 3 device IDs), then should we then create a virtual good record in the VirtualGoods table, each with a VirtualGoodID and then another table that has VirtualGoodID DeviceID to match up the movie with the DeviceIDs? We can also just use the TransactionID as the VirtualGoodID. Are there circumstances where we may want to create a record to record this "virtual good" in a VirtualGoods table?

  Read the article

• What do you do if you reach a design dead-end in evolutionary methods like Agile or XP?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  As I was reading Martin Fowler's famous blog post Is Design Dead?, one of the striking impressions I got is that given the fact that in Agile Methodology and Extreme Programming, the design as well as programming is evolutionary, there are always points where things need to get refactored. It may be possible that when a programmer's level is good, and they understand design implications and don't make critical mistakes, the code continues to evolve. However, in a normal context, what is the ground reality in this context? In a normal day given some significant development goes into product, and when critical change occurs in requirement isn't it a constraint that how much ever we wish, fundamental design aspects cannot be modified? (without throwing away major part of the code). Is it not quite likely that one reaches dead-end on any further possible improvement on design and requirements? I am not advocating any non-Agile practice here, but I want to know from people who practice agile or iterative or evolutionary development methods, as for their real experiences. Have you ever reached such dead-ends? How have you managed to avoid it or escaped it? Or are there measures to ensure that design remains clean and flexible as it evolves?

  Read the article

• DDD: Service or Repository

  - by tikhop

  I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

  Read the article

• Why should ViewModel route actions to Controller when using the MVCVM pattern?

  - by Lea Hayes

  When reading examples across the Internet (including the MSDN reference) I have found that code examples are all doing the following type of thing: public class FooViewModel : BaseViewModel { public FooViewModel(FooController controller) { Controller = controller; } protected FooController Controller { get; private set; } public void PerformSuperAction() { // This just routes action to controller... Controller.SuperAction(); } ... } and then for the view: public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.PerformSuperAction(); } } Why do we not just do the following? public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.Controller.SuperAction(); // or, even just use a shortcut property: Controller.SuperAction(); } }

  Read the article

• How to avoid having very large objects with Domain Driven Design

  - by Pablojim

  We are following Domain Driven Design for the implementation of a large website. However by putting the behaviour on the domain objects we are ending up with some very large classes. For example on our WebsiteUser object, we have many many methods - e.g. dealing with passwords, order history, refunds, customer segmentation. All of these methods are directly related to the user. Many of these methods delegate internally to other child object but this still results in some very large classes. I'm keen to avoid exposing lots of child objects e.g. user.getOrderHistory().getLatestOrder(). What other strategies can be used to avoid this problems?

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Defining formula through user interface in user form

  - by BriskLabs Pakistan

  I am a student and developing a simple assignment - windows form application in visual studio 2010. The application is suppose to construct formulas as per user requirement. The process: It has to pick data from columns of Microsoft Access database and the user should be able to pick the data by column name like we do in a drop down menu. and create reusable formulas in it ( configure it once and can change it again). followings are column titles from database that can be picked for example. e.g Col -1 : Marks in Maths Col -2 : Total Marks in Maths Col -3 : Marks in science Col -4 : Total marks in science Finally we should be able to construct any formula in the UI like (Col 1 + Col 3 ) / ( col 2 + col 4) = Formula 1 once this is formula is set saved and a name is assigned to it by user. he/she can use the formula and results shall appear in a window below. i.e He would be able to calculate his desired figures (formula) by only manipulating underlying data on the UI layer....choose the data for a period and apply the formula and get the answer Problem: It looks like I have to create an app where rules are set through UI....... this means no stored procedures are required in SQL.... please suggest the right approach.

  Read the article

• Designing a class in such a way that it doesn't become a "God object"

  - by devoured elysium

  I'm designing an application that will allow me to draw some functions on a graphic. Each function will be drawn from a set of points that I will pass to this graphic class. There are different kinds of points, all inheriting from a MyPoint class. For some kind of points it will be just printing them on the screen as they are, others can be ignored, others added, so there is some kind of logic associated to them that can get complex. How to actually draw the graphic is not the main issue here. What bothers me is how to make the code logic such that this GraphicMaker class doesn't become the so called God-Object. It would be easy to make something like this: class GraphicMaker { ArrayList<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>(); public void AddPoint(Point point) { points.add(point); } public void DoDrawing() { foreach (Point point in points) { if (point is PointA) { //some logic here else if (point is PointXYZ) { //...etc } } } } How would you do something like this? I have a feeling the correct way would be to put the drawing logic on each Point object (so each child class from Point would know how to draw itself) but two problems arise: There will be kinds of points that need to know all the other points that exist in the GraphicObject class to know how to draw themselves. I can make a lot of the methods/properties from the Graphic class public, so that all the points have a reference to the Graphic class and can make all their logic as they want, but isn't that a big price to pay for not wanting to have a God class?

  Read the article

• A PHP design pattern for the model part [PHP Zend Framework]

  - by Matthieu

  I have a PHP MVC application using Zend Framework. As presented in the quickstart, I use 3 layers for the model part : Model (business logic) Data mapper Table data gateway (or data access object, i.e. one class per SQL table) The model is UML designed and totally independent of the DB. My problem is : I can't have multiple instances of the same "instance/record". For example : if I get, for example, the user "Chuck Norris" with id=5, this will create a new model instance wich members will be filled by the data mapper (the data mapper query the table data gateway that query the DB). Then, if I change the name to "Duck Norras", don't save it in DB right away, and re-load the same user in another variable, I have "synchronisation" problems... (different instances for the same "record") Right now, I use the Multiton pattern : like Singleton, but multiple instances indexed by a key (wich is the user ID in our example). But this is complicating my developpement a lot, and my testings too. How to do it right ?

  Read the article

• My proposed design is usually worse than my colleague's - how do I get better?

  - by user151193

  I have been programming for couple of years and am generally good when it comes to fixing problems and creating small-to-medium scripts, however, I'm generally not good at designing large scale programs in object oriented way. Few questions Recently, a colleague who has same number of years of experience as me and I were working on a problem. I was working on a problem longer than him, however, he came up with a better solution and in the end we're going to use his design. This really affected me. I admit his design is better, but I wanted to come up with a design as good as his. I'm even contemplating quitting the job. Not sure why but suddenly I feel under some pressure e.g. what would juniors think of me and etc? Is it normal? Or I'm thinking a little too much into this? My job involves programming in Python. I try to read source code but how do you think I can improve me design skills? Are there any good books or software that I should study? Please enlighten me. I will really appreciate your help.

  Read the article

• Generic object to object mapping with parametrized constructor

  - by Rody van Sambeek

  I have a data access layer which returns an IDataRecord. I have a WCF service that serves DataContracts (dto's). These DataContracts are initiated by a parametrized constructor containing the IDataRecord as follows: [DataContract] public class DataContractItem { [DataMember] public int ID; [DataMember] public string Title; public DataContractItem(IDataRecord record) { this.ID = Convert.ToInt32(record["ID"]); this.Title = record["title"].ToString(); } } Unfortanately I can't change the DAL, so I'm obliged to work with the IDataRecord as input. But in generat this works very well. The mappings are pretty simple most of the time, sometimes they are a bit more complex, but no rocket science. However, now I'd like to be able to use generics to instantiate the different DataContracts to simplify the WCF service methods. I want to be able to do something like: public T DoSomething<T>(IDataRecord record) { ... return new T(record); } So I'd tried to following solutions: Use a generic typed interface with a constructor. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a constructor in an interface Use a static method to instantiate the DataContract and create a typed interface containing this static method. doesn't work: ofcourse we can't define a static method in an interface Use a generic typed interface containing the new() constraint doesn't work: new() constraint cannot contain a parameter (the IDataRecord) Using a factory object to perform the mapping based on the DataContract Type. does work, but: not very clean, because I now have a switch statement with all mappings in one file. I can't find a real clean solution for this. Can somebody shed a light on this for me? The project is too small for any complex mapping techniques and too large for a "switch-based" factory implementation.

  Read the article

• Significant amount of the time, I can't think of a reason to have an object instead of a static class. Do objects have more benefits than I think?

  - by Prog

  I understand the concept of an object, and as a Java programmer I feel the OO paradigm comes rather naturally to me in practice. However recently I found myself thinking: Wait a second, what are actually the practical benefits of using an object over using a static class (with proper encapsulation and OO practices)? I could think of two benefits of using an object (both significant and powerful): Polymorphism: allows you to swap functionality dynamically and flexibly during runtime. Also allows to add new functionality 'parts' and alternatives to the system easily. For example if there's a Car class designed to work with Engine objects, and you want to add a new Engine to the system that the Car can use, you can create a new Engine subclass and simply pass an object of this class into the Car object, without having to change anything about Car. And you can decide to do so during runtime. Being able to 'pass functionality around': you can pass an object around the system dynamically. But are there any more advantages to objects over static classes? Often when I add new 'parts' to a system, I do so by creating a new class and instantiating objects from it. But recently when I stopped and thought about it, I realized that a static class would do just the same as an object, in a lot of the places where I normally use an object. For example, I'm working on adding a save/load-file mechanism to my app. With an object, the calling line of code will look like this: Thing thing = fileLoader.load(file); With a static class, it would look like this: Thing thing = FileLoader.load(file); What's the difference? Fairly often I just can't think of a reason to instantiate an object when a plain-old static-class would act just the same. But in OO systems, static classes are fairly rare. So I must be missing something. Are there any more advantages to objects other from the two that I listed? Please explain.

  Read the article

• What should a domain object's validation cover?

  - by MarcoR88

  I'm trying to figure out how to do validation of domain objects that need external resources, such as data mappers/dao Firstly here's my code class User { const INVALID_ID = 1; const INVALID_NAME = 2; const INVALID_EMAIL = 4; int getID(); void setID(Int i); string getName(); void setName(String s); string getEmail(); void setEmail(String s); int getErrorsForInsert(); // returns a bitmask for INVALID_* constants int getErrorsForUpdate(); } My worries are about the uniqueness of the email, checking it would require the storage layer. Reading others' code seems that two solutions are equally accepted: both perform the unique validation in data mapper but some set an error state to the DO user.addError(User.INVALID_EMAIL) while others prefer to throw a totally different type of exception that covers only persistence, like: UserStorageException { const INVALID_EMAIL = 1; const INVALID_CITY = 2; } What are the pros and cons of these solutions?

  Read the article

• Interface Design Problem: Storing Result of Transactions

  - by jboyd

  Requirements: multiple sources of input (social media content) into a system multiple destinations of output (social media api's) sources and destinations WILL be added some pseudo: IContentProvider contentProvider = context.getBean("contentProvider"); List<Content> toPost = contentProvider.getContent(); for (Content c : toPost) { SocialMediaPresence smPresence = socialMediaService.getSMPresenceBySomeId(c.getDestId()); smPresence.hasTwitter(); smPresence.hasFacebook(); //just to show what this is smPresence.postContent(c); //post content could fail for some SM platforms, but shoulnd't be lost forever } So now I run out of steam, I need to know what content has been successfully posted, and if it hasn't gone too all platforms, or if another platform were added in the future that content needs to go out for it as well (therefore my content provider will need to not only know if content has gone out, but for what platforms). I'm not looking for code, although sample/pseudo is fine... I'm looking for an approach to this problem that I can implement

  Read the article

• Choosing a design pattern for a class that might change it's internal attributes

  - by the_drow

  I have a class that holds arbitrary state and it's defined like this: class AbstractFoo { }; template <class StatePolicy> class Foo : public StatePolicy, public AbstractFoo { }; The state policy contains only protected attributes that represent the state. The state might be the same for multiple behaviors and they can be replaced at runtime. All Foo objects have the same interface to abstract the state itself and to enable storing Foo objects in containers. I would like to find the least verbose and the most maintainable way to express this.

  Read the article

• Subclassing to avoid line length

  - by Super User

  The standard line length of code is 80 characters per line. This is accepted and followed by the most of programmers. I working on a state machine of a character and is necessary for me follow this too. I have four classes who pass this limit. I can subclass each class in two more and then avoid the line length limit. class Stand class Walk class Punch class Crouch The new classes would be StandLeft, StandRight and so on. Stand, Walk, Punch and Crouch would be then abstract classes. The question if there is a limit for the long of the hierarchies tree or this is depends of the case.

  Read the article

• Explanation of the definition of interface inheritance as described in GoF book

  - by Geek

  I am reading the first chapter of the Gof book. Section 1.6 discusses about class vs interface inheritance: Class versus Interface Inheritance It's important to understand the difference between an object's class and its type. An object's class defines how the object is implemented.The class defines the object's internal state and the implementation of its operations.In contrast,an object's type only refers to its interface--the set of requests on which it can respond. An object can have many types, and objects of different classes can have the same type. Of course, there's a close relationship between class and type. Because a class defines the operations an object can perform, it also defines the object's type . When we say that an object is an instance of a class, we imply that the object supports the interface defined by the class. Languages like c++ and Eiffel use classes to specify both an object's type and its implementation. Smalltalk programs do not declare the types of variables; consequently,the compiler does not check that the types of objects assigned to a variable are subtypes of the variable's type. Sending a message requires checking that the class of the receiver implements the message, but it doesn't require checking that the receiver is an instance of a particular class. It's also important to understand the difference between class inheritance and interface inheritance (or subtyping). Class inheritance defines an object's implementation in terms of another object's implementation. In short, it's a mechanism for code and representation sharing. In contrast,interface inheritance(or subtyping) describes when an object can be used in place of another. I am familiar with the Java and JavaScript programming language and not really familiar with either C++ or Smalltalk or Eiffel as mentioned here. So I am trying to map the concepts discussed here to Java's way of doing classes, inheritance and interfaces. This is how I think of of these concepts in Java: In Java a class is always a blueprint for the objects it produces and what interface(as in "set of all possible requests that the object can respond to") an object of that class possess is defined during compilation stage only because the class of the object would have implemented those interfaces. The requests that an object of that class can respond to is the set of all the methods that are in the class(including those implemented for the interfaces that this class implements). My specific questions are: Am I right in saying that Java's way is more similar to C++ as described in the third paragraph. I do not understand what is meant by interface inheritance in the last paragraph. In Java interface inheritance is one interface extending from another interface. But I think the word interface has some other overloaded meaning here. Can some one provide an example in Java of what is meant by interface inheritance here so that I understand it better?

  Read the article

• Is there a Design Pattern for preventing dangling references?

  - by iFreilicht

  I was thinking about a design for custom handles. The thought is to prevent clients from copying around large objects. Now a regular handle class would probably suffice for that, but it doesn't solve the "dangling reference problem"; If a client has multiple handles of the same object and deletes the object via one of them, all the others would be invalid, but not know it, so the client could write or read parts of the memory he shouldn't have access to. Is there a design pattern to prevent this from happening? Two ideas: An observer-like pattern where the destructor of an object would notify all handles. "Handle handles" (does such a thing even exist?). All the handles don't really point to the object, but to another handle. When the object gets destroyed, this "master-handle" invalidates itself and therefore all that point to it.

  Read the article

• Expose subset of a class - design question

  - by thanikkal

  Suppose i have a product class with about close to 100 properties. Now for some operations (Say tax calculation) i dont really need this bulky product type, rather only a subset that has price related properties. I am not sure if i should create different snap shots(class) of products that just has the properties that i am interested in. what would be the ideal approach so that i don't unnecessarily pass around unsought fluff? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Book Review: Pro SQL Server 2008 Relational Database Design and Implementation

  - by Alexander Kuznetsov

  Investing in proper database design is a very efficient way to cut maintenance costs. If we expect a system to last, we need to make sure it has a good solid foundation - high quality database design. Surely we can and sometimes do cut corners and save on database design to get things done faster. Unfortunately, such cutting corners frequently comes back and bites us: we may end up spending a lot of time solving issues caused by poor design. So, solid understanding of relational database design is...(read more)

  Read the article

• Are there any GUI or user interface design patterns? [closed]

  - by Niranjan Kala

  I was curious about GUI design patterns, so I searched and got some information, including a list of UI patterns for the web. This UI patterns website says that: UI Patterns is a growing collection of User Interface Design Principles and User Interface Usability Patterns present on web applications and sites today. Are there any other design patterns for constructing websites or other user interfaces? Are there any books that describe these patterns? I'm particularly interested in patterns for Windows desktop development and web development in the .NET platform.

  Read the article

• Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• Is there a definitive reference on Pinball playfield design?

  - by World Engineer

  I'm looking at designing tables for Future Pinball but I'm not sure where to start as I've little background in game design per se. I've played scores of pinball tables over the years so I've a fairly good idea of what is "fun" in those terms. However, I'd like to know if there is a definitive "bible" of pinball design as far as layout and scoring/mode design goes. I've looked but there doesn't seem to be anything really coherent that I could find. Is it simply a lost art or am I missing some buried gem?

  Read the article

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