Search Results

Search found 5751 results on 231 pages for 'analysis patterns'.

Page 61/231 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

• Entity Attribute Value Database vs. strict Relational Model Ecommerce question

  - by Dr. Zim

  It is safe to say that the EAV/CR database model is bad. That said, Question: What database model, technique, or pattern should be used to deal with "classes" of attributes describing e-commerce products which can be changed at run time? In a good E-commerce database, you will store classes of options (like TV resolution then have a resolution for each TV, but the next product may not be a TV and not have "TV resolution"). How do you store them, search efficiently, and allow your users to setup product types with variable fields describing their products? If the search engine finds that customers typically search for TVs based on console depth, you could add console depth to your fields, then add a single depth for each tv product type at run time. There is a nice common feature among good e-commerce apps where they show a set of products, then have "drill down" side menus where you can see "TV Resolution" as a header, and the top five most common TV Resolutions for the found set. You click one and it only shows TVs of that resolution, allowing you to further drill down by selecting other categories on the side menu. These options would be the dynamic product attributes added at run time. Further discussion: So long story short, are there any links out on the Internet or model descriptions that could "academically" fix the following setup? I thank Noel Kennedy for suggesting a category table, but the need may be greater than that. I describe it a different way below, trying to highlight the significance. I may need a viewpoint correction to solve the problem, or I may need to go deeper in to the EAV/CR. Love the positive response to the EAV/CR model. My fellow developers all say what Jeffrey Kemp touched on below: "new entities must be modeled and designed by a professional" (taken out of context, read his response below). The problem is: entities add and remove attributes weekly (search keywords dictate future attributes) new entities arrive weekly (products are assembled from parts) old entities go away weekly (archived, less popular, seasonal) The customer wants to add attributes to the products for two reasons: department / keyword search / comparison chart between like products consumer product configuration before checkout The attributes must have significance, not just a keyword search. If they want to compare all cakes that have a "whipped cream frosting", they can click cakes, click birthday theme, click whipped cream frosting, then check all cakes that are interesting knowing they all have whipped cream frosting. This is not specific to cakes, just an example.

  Read the article

• Recommend .NET data access layer/middle tier

  - by Simon G

  Hi, I'm currently creating an MVC application that will likely to expand to include a silverlight, wpf and possible windows phone all using the same data. So I've created a class library to keep all my objects in and I've created the MVC app. My question is what would be the best way to access the data? Taking into account possible expansion in the future. Should I use web services/WCF? RIA Services? Remoting? Or something else. What have people used in the past and what do you recommend? Thanks

  Read the article

• Dealing with the lack of closures in Objective-C

  - by Sean Clark Hess

  Maybe it's just the fact that I've been using http://nodejs.org/ lately, but the lack of closures in Objective-C (iphone) has been really hard to work around. For example, I'm creating service classes. Each service class can have several methods, each of which makes a different URL request. I can use the delegate pattern, but that means that I have to create a new service each time I want to call a method on it (because it has to store the delegate and selector for that request, and new method calls would overwrite them). Even more difficult for me is the fact that I can't easily keep local variables around in the scope for a callback. I have to store anything I want to send back to the delegate on the service class itself, which makes it harder to have more than one method on each class. How do you pros do it? Should I just quit whining and do it another way?

  Read the article

• StringLengthValidator - localization not working

  - by danysdragons

  I am validating input to my ASP.NET application using StringLengthValidators, and using the ValidationSummary control to display the error messages. To localize the application, the StringLengthValidators have the MessageTemplateResourceName and MessageTemplateResourceType attributes set. The first time the validator runs, it picks up the correct error message based on the current culture setting. If I change the language setting while running the app, the next time the validator runs, the ValidationSummary it still displays the error message for the old culture. The text for all other controls is being updated correctly. Any ideas, folks?

  Read the article

• Java Singleton Pattern

  - by Spencer

  I'm used the Singleton Design Pattern public class Singleton { private static final Singleton INSTANCE = new Singleton(); // Private constructor prevents instantiation from other classes private Singleton() {} public static Singleton getInstance() { return INSTANCE; } } My question is how do I create an object of class Singleton in another class? I've tried: Singleton singleton = new Singleton(); // error - constructor is private Singleton singleton = Singleton.getInstance(); // error - non-static method cannot be referenced from a static context What is the correct code? Thanks, Spencer

  Read the article

• Parametrized Strategy Pattern

  - by ott

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

  Read the article

• Using C# and Repository Factory and the error: The requested database is not defined in configurati

  - by odiseh

  hi I am using Repository factory for visual studio 2008 for a personal project. It generated a class called ProductRepository which inherits from Repository. The ProductRepository has a constructor which gets a database name as string and passes it to its base (I mean Repository ). So when I try to debug my project step by step, I pass my database name to ProductRepository but it raises the following error: The requested database is not defined in configuration. What's wrong?

  Read the article

• Is this the correct way of speaking to a "Content Manager" Class?

  - by DeanMc

  I am creating a silverlight site. I am currently breaking out my ideas into pieces of functionality. One of the idea's I have is the concept of a content manager. This is essentially a UI control with 4 regions. Top, Bottom, Right & Left. I also have a collection of objects that are considered "Menu Items". These are controls that function as a way to navigate around, similar to links. The idea I have is to implement an IMenuItem interface. Among the standard pieces of information (Text, PageReference, etc) I was also going to hold a reference to the content manager. My idea behind this thinking is that I can pass the PageReference to a property on the ContentManager and then call a method which knows how to update the content manager accordingly. Is this the best way of implementing this or is their some sort of pattern for it?

  Read the article

• Visitor pattern and compiler code generation, how to get children attributes?

  - by LeleDumbo

  I'd like to modify my compiler's code generator to use visitor pattern since the current approach must use multiple conditional statement to check the real type of a child before generating the corresponding code. However, I have problems to get children attributes after they're visited. For instance, in binary expression I use this: LHSCode := GenerateExpressionCode(LHSNode); RHSCode := GenerateExpressionCode(RHSNode); CreateBinaryExpression(Self,LHS,RHS); In visitor pattern the visit method is usually void, so I can't get the expression code from LHS and RHS. Keeping shared global variables isn't an option since expression code generation is recursive thus could erase previous values kept in the variables. I'll just show the binary expression as this is the most complicated part (for now): function TLLVMCodeGenerator.GenerateExpressionCode( Expr: TASTExpression): TLLVMValue; var BinExpr: TASTBinaryExpression; UnExpr: TASTUnaryExpression; LHSCode, RHSCode, ExprCode: TLLVMValue; VarExpr: TASTVariableExpression; begin if Expr is TASTBinaryExpression then begin BinExpr := Expr as TASTBinaryExpression; LHSCode := GenerateExpressionCode(BinExpr.LHS); RHSCode := GenerateExpressionCode(BinExpr.RHS); case BinExpr.Op of '<': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccSLT, LHSCode, RHSCode); '<=': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccSLE, LHSCode, RHSCode); '>': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccSGT, LHSCode, RHSCode); '>=': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccSGE, LHSCode, RHSCode); '==': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccEQ, LHSCode, RHSCode); '<>': Result := FBuilder.CreateICmp(ccNE, LHSCode, RHSCode); '/\': Result := FBuilder.CreateAnd(LHSCode, RHSCode); '\/': Result := FBuilder.CreateOr(LHSCode, RHSCode); '+': Result := FBuilder.CreateAdd(LHSCode, RHSCode); '-': Result := FBuilder.CreateSub(LHSCode, RHSCode); '*': Result := FBuilder.CreateMul(LHSCode, RHSCode); '/': Result := FBuilder.CreateSDiv(LHSCode, RHSCode); end; end else if Expr is TASTPrimaryExpression then if Expr is TASTBooleanConstant then with Expr as TASTBooleanConstant do Result := FBuilder.CreateConstant(Ord(Value), ltI1) else if Expr is TASTIntegerConstant then with Expr as TASTIntegerConstant do Result := FBuilder.CreateConstant(Value, ltI32) else if Expr is TASTUnaryExpression then begin UnExpr := Expr as TASTUnaryExpression; ExprCode := GenerateExpressionCode(UnExpr.Expr); case UnExpr.Op of '~': Result := FBuilder.CreateXor( FBuilder.CreateConstant(1, ltI1), ExprCode); '-': Result := FBuilder.CreateSub( FBuilder.CreateConstant(0, ltI32), ExprCode); end; end else if Expr is TASTVariableExpression then begin VarExpr := Expr as TASTVariableExpression; with VarExpr.VarDecl do Result := FBuilder.CreateVar(Ident, BaseTypeLLVMTypeMap[BaseType]); end; end; Hope you understand it :)

  Read the article

• “if” statement vs OO Design - 2

  - by hilal

  I encountered similar problem “if” statement vs OO Design - 1 but it is slightly different. Here is the problem that open the popup (different objects/popups) onValueChange of listbox Popup1 p1; // different objects Popup2 p2; // different objects Popup3 p3; ... listbox.add("p1"); listbox.add("p2"); listbox.add("p3"); ... listbox.addChangeHandler() { if(getSelectedItem().equals("p1")){ p1 = new Popup1(); p1.show(); } else if() {...} .... } I don't want to write "if" that if p1 then p1 = new Popup1(); p1.center(); How I can handle this situation? Any design-pattern? Here is my solution but it is so costly map() { map.put("p1", new Popup1()); map.put("p2", new Popup2()); map.put("p3", new Popup3()); } onValueChange() { map.get(selectedItem).show(); } One drawback is initialization all the popups. but it is require only when valueChange

  Read the article

• Psuedo-Backwards Builder Pattern?

  - by Avid Aardvark

  In a legacy codebase I have a very large class with far too many fields/responsibilities. Imagine this is a Pizza object. It has highly granular fields like: hasPepperoni hasSausage hasBellPeppers I know that when these three fields are true, we have a Supreme pizza. However, this class is not open for extension or change, so I can't add a PizzaType, or isSupreme(), etc. Folks throughout the codebase duplicate the same "if(a && b && c) then isSupreme)" logic all over place. This issue comes up for quite a few concepts, so I'm looking for a way to deconstruct this object into many subobjects, e.g. a pseudo-backwards Builder Pattern. PizzaType pizzaType = PizzaUnbuilder.buildPizzaType(Pizza); //PizzaType.SUPREME Dough dough = PizzaUnbuilder.buildDough(Pizza); Is this the right approach? Is there a pattern for this already? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Difference between Singleton implemention using pointer and using static object

  - by Anon

  EDIT: Sorry my question was not clear, why do books/articles prefer implementation#1 over implementation#2? What is the actual advantage of using pointer in implementation of Singleton class vs using a static object? Why do most books prefer this class Singleton { private: static Singleton *p_inst; Singleton(); public: static Singleton * instance() { if (!p_inst) { p_inst = new Singleton(); } return p_inst; } }; over this class Singleton { public: static Singleton& Instance() { static Singleton inst; return inst; } protected: Singleton(); // Prevent construction Singleton(const Singleton&); // Prevent construction by copying Singleton& operator=(const Singleton&); // Prevent assignment ~Singleton(); // Prevent unwanted destruction };

  Read the article

• How to improve the builder pattern?

  - by tangens

  Motivation Recently I searched for a way to initialize a complex object without passing a lot of parameter to the constructor. I tried it with the builder pattern, but I don't like the fact, that I'm not able to check at compile time if I really set all needed values. Traditional builder pattern When I use the builder pattern to create my Complex object, the creation is more "typesafe", because it's easier to see what an argument is used for: new ComplexBuilder() .setFirst( "first" ) .setSecond( "second" ) .setThird( "third" ) ... .build(); But now I have the problem, that I can easily miss an important parameter. I can check for it inside the build() method, but that is only at runtime. At compile time there is nothing that warns me, if I missed something. Enhanced builder pattern Now my idea was to create a builder, that "reminds" me if I missed a needed parameter. My first try looks like this: public class Complex { private String m_first; private String m_second; private String m_third; private Complex() {} public static class ComplexBuilder { private Complex m_complex; public ComplexBuilder() { m_complex = new Complex(); } public Builder2 setFirst( String first ) { m_complex.m_first = first; return new Builder2(); } public class Builder2 { private Builder2() {} Builder3 setSecond( String second ) { m_complex.m_second = second; return new Builder3(); } } public class Builder3 { private Builder3() {} Builder4 setThird( String third ) { m_complex.m_third = third; return new Builder4(); } } public class Builder4 { private Builder4() {} Complex build() { return m_complex; } } } } As you can see, each setter of the builder class returns a different internal builder class. Each internal builder class provides exactly one setter method and the last one provides only a build() method. Now the construction of an object again looks like this: new ComplexBuilder() .setFirst( "first" ) .setSecond( "second" ) .setThird( "third" ) .build(); ...but there is no way to forget a needed parameter. The compiler wouldn't accept it. Optional parameters If I had optional parameters, I would use the last internal builder class Builder4 to set them like a "traditional" builder does, returning itself. Questions Is this a well known pattern? Does it have a special name? Do you see any pitfalls? Do you have any ideas to improve the implementation - in the sense of fewer lines of code?

  Read the article

• CQRS - The query side

  - by mattcodes

  A lot of the blogsphere articles related to CQRS (command query repsonsibility) seperation seem to imply that all screens/viewmodels are flat. e.g. Name, Age, Location Of Birth etc.. and thus the suggestion that implementation wise we stick them into fast read source etc.. single table per view mySQL etc.. and pull them out with something like primitive SqlDataReader, kick that nasty nhibernate ORM etc.. However, whilst I agree that domain models dont mapped well to most screens, many of the screens that I work with are more dimensional, and Im sure this is pretty common in LOB apps. So my question is how are people handling screen where by for example it displays a summary of customer details and then a list of their orders with a [more detail] link etc.... I thought about keeping with the straight forward SQL query to the Query Database breaking off the outer join so can build a suitable ViewModel to View but it seems like overkill? Alternatively (this is starting to feel yuck) in CustomerSummaryView table have a text/big (whatever the type is in your DB) column called Orders, and the columns for the Order summary screen grid are seperated by , and rows by |. Even with XML datatype it still feeel dirty. Any thoughts on an optimal practice?

  Read the article

• C# Design Questions

  - by guazz

  How to approach unit testing of private methods? I have a class that loads Employee data into a database. Here is a sample: public class EmployeeFacade { public Employees EmployeeRepository = new Employees(); public TaxDatas TaxRepository = new TaxDatas(); public Accounts AccountRepository = new Accounts(); //and so on for about 20 more repositories etc. public bool LoadAllEmployeeData(Employee employee) { if (employee == null) throw new Exception("..."); EmployeeRepository emps = new EmployeeRepository(); bool exists = emps.FetchExisting(emps.Id); if (!exists) { emps.AddNew(); } try { emps.Id = employee.Id; emps.Name = employee.EmployeeDetails.PersonalDetails.Active.Names.FirstName; emps.SomeOtherAttribute; } catch() {} try { emps.Save(); } catch(){} try { LoadorUpdateTaxData(employee.TaxData); } catch() {} try { LoadorUpdateAccountData(employee.AccountData); } catch() {} ... etc. for about 20 more other employee objects } private bool LoadorUpdateTaxData(employeeId, TaxData taxData) { if (taxData == null) throw new Exception("..."); ...same format as above but using AccountRepository } private bool LoadorUpdateAccountData(employee.TaxData) { ...same format as above but using TaxRepository } } I am writing an application to take serialised objects(e.g. Employee above) and load the data to the database. I have a few design question that I would like opinions on: A - I am calling this class "EmployeeFacade" because I am (attempting?) to use the facade pattern. Is it good practace to name the pattern on the class name? B - Is it good to call the concrete entities of my DAL layer classes "Repositories" e.g. "EmployeeRepository" ? C - Is using the repositories in this way sensible or should I create a method on the repository itself to take, say, the Employee and then load the data from there e.g. EmployeeRepository.LoadAllEmployeeData(Employee employee)? I am aim for cohesive class and but this will requrie the repository to have knowledge of the Employee object which may not be good? D - Is there any nice way around of not having to check if an object is null at the begining of each method? E - I have a EmployeeRepository, TaxRepository, AccountRepository declared as public for unit testing purpose. These are really private enities but I need to be able to substitute these with stubs so that the won't write to my database(I overload the save() method to do nothing). Is there anyway around this or do I have to expose them? F - How can I test the private methods - or is this done (something tells me it's not)? G- "emps.Name = employee.EmployeeDetails.PersonalDetails.Active.Names.FirstName;" this breaks the Law of Demeter but how do I adjust my objects to abide by the law?

  Read the article

• Nice name for `decorator' class?

  - by Lajos Nagy

  I would like to separate the API I'm working on into two sections: 'bare-bones' and 'cushy'. The idea is that all method calls in the 'cushy' section could be expressed in terms of the ones in the 'bare-bones' section, that is, they would only serve as convenience methods for the quick-and-dirty. The reason I would like to do this is that very often when people are beginning to use an API for the first time, they are not interested in details and performance: they just want to get it working. Anybody tried anything similar before? I'm particularly interested in naming conventions and organizing the code.

  Read the article

• Query Object Pattern (Design Pattern)

  - by The Elite Gentleman

  Hi Guys, I need to implement a Query Object Pattern in Java for my customizable search interface (of a webapp I'm writing). Does anybody know where I can get an example/tutorial of Query Object Pattern (Martin Fowler's QoP)? Thanks in Advance ADDITION How to add a Query Pattern to an existing DAO pattern?

  Read the article

• Scope of Connection Object for a Website using Connection Pooling (Local or Instance)

  - by Danny

  For a web application with connection polling enabled, is it better to work with a locally scoped connection object or instance scoped connection object. I know there is probably not a big performance improvement between the two (because of the pooling) but would you say that one follows a better pattern than the other. Thanks ;) public class MyServlet extends HttpServlet { DataSource ds; public void init() throws ServletException { ds = (DataSource) getServletContext().getAttribute("DBCPool"); } protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest arg0, HttpServletResponse arg1) throws ServletException, IOException { SomeWork("SELECT * FROM A"); SomeWork("SELECT * FROM B"); } void SomeWork(String sql) { Connection conn = null; try { conn = ds.getConnection(); // execute some sql ..... } finally { if(conn != null) { conn.close(); // return to pool } } } } Or public class MyServlet extends HttpServlet { DataSource ds; Connection conn;* public void init() throws ServletException { ds = (DataSource) getServletContext().getAttribute("DBCPool"); } protected void doGet(HttpServletRequest arg0, HttpServletResponse arg1) throws ServletException, IOException { try { conn = ds.getConnection(); SomeWork("SELECT * FROM A"); SomeWork("SELECT * FROM B"); } finally { if(conn != null) { conn.close(); // return to pool } } } void SomeWork(String sql) { // execute some sql ..... } }

  Read the article

• Strategy pattern and "action" classes explosion

  - by devoured elysium

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

  Read the article

• Domain driven design: Manager and service

  - by ryudice

  I'm creating some business logic in the application but I'm not sure how or where to encapsulate it, I've used the repository pattern for data access, I've seen some projects that use DDD that have some classes with the "Service" suffix and the "manager" suffix, what are each of this clases suppose to take care of in DDD?

  Read the article

• Abstract Factory design pattern to create objects? Why can’t we just use the new operator?

  - by Harsha

  why do we need a Abstract Factory design pattern to create objects? Why can’t we just use the new operator? answer is, to avoid tight coupleing of the objects. But I didn't understand how ? can anyone explain with code (will be very useful). what makes abstract factory design pattern useful and when. Thanks in advance. Harsha T

  Read the article

• Business Logic Layer Pattern on Rails? MVCL

  - by Fabiano PS

  That is a broad question, and I appreciate no short/dumb asnwers like: "Oh that is the model job, this quest is retarded (period)" PROBLEM Where I work at people created a system over 2 years for managing the manufacture process over demand in the most simplified still broad as possible, involving selling, buying, assemble, The system is coded over Ruby On Rails. The app has been changed lots of times and the result is a mess on callbacks (some are called several times), 200+ models, and fat controllers: Total bad. The QUESTION is, if there is a gem, or pattern designed to handle Rails large app logic? The logic whould be able to fully talk to models (whose only concern would be data format handling and validation) What I EXPECT is to reduce complexity from various controllers, and hard to track callbacks into files with the responsibility to handle a business operation logic. In some cases there is the need to wait for a response, in others, only validation of the input is enough and a bg process would take place. ie: -- Sell some products (need to wait the operation to finish) 1. Set a View able to get the products input 2. Controller gets the product list inputed by employee and call the logic Logic::ExecuteWithResponse('sell', 'products', :prods => @product_list_with_qtt, :when => @date, :employee => current_user() ) This Logic would handle buying order, assemble order, machine schedule, warehouse reservation, and others. Have in mind that a callback on SalesOrder is not enough, since it depends on where it is called (no field for that), depends on the class of the user, among other stuff not visible for the model, or in some cases it would take long for the model to process.

  Read the article

• Factory pattern vs ease-of-use?

  - by Curtis White

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

  Read the article

• How can we implement change notification propagation for WPF and SL in the MVVM pattern?

  - by Firoso

  Here's an example scenario targetting MVVM WPF/SL development: View data binds to view model Property "Target" "Target" exposes a field of an object called "data" that exists in the local application model, called "Original" when "Original" changes, it should raise notification to the view model and then propogate that change notification to the View. Here are the solutions I've come up with, but I don't like any of them all that much. I'm looking for other ideas, by the time we come up with something rock solid I'm certain Microsoft will have released .NET 5 with WPF/SL extensions for better tools for MVVM development. For now the question is, "What have you done to solve this problem and how has it worked out for you?" Option 1. Proposal: Attach a handler to data's PropertyChanged event that watches for string values of properties it cares about that might have changed, and raises the appropriate notification. Why I don't like it: Changes don't bubble naturally, objects must be explicitly watched, if data changes to a new source, events must be un-registered/registered. Why I kind of like it: I get explicit control over propogation of changes, and I don't have to use any types that belong at a higher level of the application such as dependancy properties. Option 2. Proposal: Attach a handler to data's PropertyChanged event that re-raises the event across all properties using the name property name. Why I don't like it: This is essentially the same as option 1, but less intelligent, and forces me to never change my property names, as they have to be the same as the property names on data Why I kind of like it: It's very easy to set up and I don't have to think about it... Then again if I try to think, and change names to things that make sense, I shoot myself in the foot, and then I have to think about it! Option 3. Proposal: Inherit my view model from dependancy object, and notify binding sources of changes directly. Why I don't like it: I'm not even 100% sure dependancy properties/objects can DO this, it was just a thought to look into. Also I don't personally feel that WPF/SL types like Dep Obj belong at the view model level. Why I kind of like it: IF it has the capability that I'm seeking then it's a good answer! minus that pesky layering issue. Option 4. Proposal: Use a consistant agent messaging system based off of Task Parallels DataFlow Library to propogate everything through linked pipelining. Why I don't like it: I've never tried this, and somehow I think it will be lacking, plus it requires me to think about my code completely differently all the way around. Why I kind of like it: It has the possiblity of allowing me to do some VERY fun manipulations with a push based data model and using ActionBlocks as validation AND setters to then privately change view model properties and explicitly control PropertyChanged notifications.

  Read the article

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

  - by panzerschreck

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

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >