Search Results

Search found 3642 results on 146 pages for 'architectural patterns'.

Page 61/146 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

  • Regarding the ViewModel

    - by mizipzor
    Im struggling to understand the ViewModel part of the MVVM pattern. My current approach is to have a class, with no logic whatsoever (important), except that it implements INotifyPropertyChanged. The class is just a collection of properties, a struct if you like, describing an as small part of the data as possible. I consider this my Model. Most of the WPF code I write are settings dialogs that configure said Model. The code-behind of the dialog exposes a property which returns an instance of the Model. In the XAML code I bind to subproperties of that property, thereby binding directly to the Model's properties. Which works quite well since it implements the INotifyPropertyChanged. I consider this settings dialog the View. However, I havent really been able to figure out what in all this is the ViewModel. The articles Ive read suggests that the ViewModel should tie the View and the Model together, providing the logic the Model lacks but is still to complex to go directly into the View. Is this correct? Would, in my example, the code-behind of the settings dialog be considered the ViewModel? I just feel a bit lost and would like my peers to debunk some of my assumptions. Am I completely off track here?

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern

    - by gsharp
    We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-)

    Read the article

  • When are global variables acceptable?

    - by dsimcha
    Everyone here seems to hate global variables, but I see at least one very reasonable use for them: They are great for holding program parameters that are determined at program initialization and not modified afterwords. Do you agree that this is an exception to the "globals are evil" rule? Is there any other exception that you can think of, besides in quick and dirty throwaway code where basically anything goes? If not, why are globals so fundamentally evil that you do not believe that there are any exceptons?

    Read the article

  • How to properly implement the Strategy pattern in a web MVC framework?

    - by jboxer
    In my Django app, I have a model (lets call it Foo) with a field called "type". I'd like to use Foo.type to indicate what type the specific instance of Foo is (possible choices are "Number", "Date", "Single Line of Text", "Multiple Lines of Text", and a few others). There are two things I'd like the "type" field to end up affecting; the way a value is converted from its normal type to text (for example, in "Date", it may be str(the_date.isoformat())), and the way a value is converted from text to the specified type (in "Date", it may be datetime.date.fromtimestamp(the_text)). To me, this seems like the Strategy pattern (I may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am). My question is, what's the proper way to code this in a web MVC framework? In a client-side app, I'd create a Type class with abstract methods "serialize()" and "unserialize()", override those methods in subclasses of Type (such as NumberType and DateType), and dynamically set the "type" field of a newly-instantiated Foo to the appropriate Type subclass at runtime. In a web framework, it's not quite as straightforward for me. Right now, the way that makes the most sense is to define Foo.type as a Small Integer field and define a limited set of choices (0 = "Number", 1 = "Date", 2 = "Single Line of Text", etc.) in the code. Then, when a Foo object is instantiated, use a Factory method to look at the value of the instance's "type" field and plug in the correct Type subclass (as described in the paragraph above). Foo would also have serialize() and unserialize() methods, which would delegate directly to the plugged-in Type subclass. How does this design sound? I've never run into this issue before, so I'd really like to know if other people have, and how they've solved it.

    Read the article

  • Magento Onepage Success Conversion Tracking Design Pattern

    - by user1734954
    My intent is to track conversions through multiple channels by inserting third party javascript (for example google analytics, optimizely, pricegrabber etc.) into the footer of onepage success . I've accomplished this by adding a block to the footer reference inside of the checkout success node within local.xml and everything works appropriately. My questions are more about efficiency and extensibility. It occurred to me that it would be better to combine all of the blocks into a single block reference and then use a various methods acting on a single call to the various related models to provide the data needed for insertion into the javascript for each of the conversion tracking scripts. Some examples of the common data that conversion tracking may rely on(pseudo): Order ID , Order Total, Order.LineItem.Name(foreach) and so on Currently for each of the scripts I've made a call to the appropriate model passing the customers last order id as the load value and the calling a get() assigning the return value to a variable and then iterating through the data to match the values with the expectations of the given third party service. All of the data should be pulled once when checkout is complete each third party services may expect different data in different formats Here is an example of one of the conversion tracking template files which loads at the footer of checkout success. $order = Mage::getModel('sales/order')->loadByIncrementId(Mage::getSingleton('checkout/session')->getLastRealOrderId()); $amount = number_format($order->getGrandTotal(),2); $customer = Mage::helper('customer')->getCustomer()->getData(); ?> <script type="text/javascript"> popup_email = '<?php echo($customer['email']);?>'; popup_order_number = '<?php echo $this->getOrderId() ?>'; </script> <!-- PriceGrabber Merchant Evaluation Code --> <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="https://www.pricegrabber.com/rating_merchrevpopjs.php?retid=<something>"></script> <noscript><a href="http://www.pricegrabber.com/rating_merchrev.php?retid=<something>" target=_blank> <img src="https://images.pricegrabber.com/images/mr_noprize.jpg" border="0" width="272" height="238" alt="Merchant Evaluation"></a></noscript> <!-- End PriceGrabber Code --> Having just a single piece of code like this is not that big of a deal, but we are doing similar things with a number of different third party services. Pricegrabber is one of the simpler examples. A more sophisticated tracking service expects a comma separated list of all of the product names, ids, prices, categories , order id etc. I would like to make it all more manageable so my idea to do the following: combine all of the template files into a single file Develop a helper class or library to deliver the data to the conversion template Goals Include Extensibility Minimal Model Calls Minimal Method Calls The Questions 1. Is a Mage helper the best route to take? 2. Is there any design pattern you may recommend for the "helper" class? 3. Why would this the design pattern you've chosen be best for this instance?

    Read the article

  • Can we create a class from a xml file ?

    - by panzerschreck
    Hello, Is it possible to create a class dynamically by reading an xml file ( in java preferably) ? if yes, please provide pointers on how to do it. In the process of development, we have come up with a class that has 5 attributes, all these attributes correspond to an entry in the xml file, now if the user adds/modifies the xml entry the object corresponding to it must change automatically, one approach would be generate the source code, before compile time.Is there any other way ? Is there any common pattern to model such changes in the system ? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Managing libraries and imports in a programming language

    - by sub
    I've created an interpreter for a stupid programming language in C++ and the whole core structure is finished (Tokenizer, Parser, Interpreter including Symbol tables, core functions, etc.). Now I have a problem with creating and managing the function libraries for this interpreter (I'll explain what I mean with that later) So currently my core function handler is horrible: // Simplified version myLangResult SystemFunction( name, argc, argv ) { if ( name == "print" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } cout << argv[ 0 ]; } else if ( name == "input" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } string res; getline( cin, res ); SetVariable( argv[ 0 ], res ); } else if ( name == "exit ) { exit( 0 ); } And now think of each else if being 10 times more complicated and there being 25 more system functions. Unmaintainable, feels horrible, is horrible. So I thought: How to create some sort of libraries that contain all the functions and if they are imported initialize themselves and add their functions to the symbol table of the running interpreter. However this is the point where I don't really know how to go on. What I wanted to achieve is that there is e.g.: an (extern?) string library for my language, e.g.: string, and it is imported from within a program in that language, example: import string myString = "abcde" print string.at( myString, 2 ) # output: c My problems: How to separate the function libs from the core interpreter and load them? How to get all their functions into a list and add it to the symbol table when needed? What I was thinking to do: At the start of the interpreter, as all libraries are compiled with it, every single function calls something like RegisterFunction( string namespace, myLangResult (*functionPtr) ); which adds itself to a list. When import X is then called from within the language, the list built with RegisterFunction is then added to the symbol table. Disadvantages that spring to mind: All libraries are directly in the interpreter core, size grows and it will definitely slow it down.

    Read the article

  • What is the best Design/Way to keep user connected ?

    - by Fasih Hansmukh
    Am working on a POC for self learning in which I want to keep my user connected in LIVE pattern. For example, A game in which 4 user can play at a time , here I need to keep this user connected to my game . M not good at Socket type of programming and love to do that in Services way.What i wana know is 'What is the best way of doing this'. According to my initial Brain Storming, I have decided that I will use SilverLight(In Browser Or Out of Browser) as Front end [I have no issue in that]. I m more concern in back end. Either I make an handler or make a WCF service or use full duplex service and use pooling mechanism for that. As a random thought I come up with a Timer type logic that will fire every after 10 seconds at clients end and get status like Is it now Its turn to roll a dice Home many user left (in case if some of them left) What are connected user status in game like there score/points ect and update game view according to this at his end Kindly place your best answers here that will help me to learn this. Regards and thanks in Advance EDIT: Starting Bounty as i need more feedback. FH

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern [.net/c#]

    - by gsharp
    Hi We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-) Thanks for you help.

    Read the article

  • Arranging VS2008 generated LinqToSql/EntityFramework data models/contexts in assemblies.

    - by JMSA
    What pattern should I use for data-access in case of VS2008 generated L2s or EF DataModels? Repository-pattern or what? As we know VS2008 generates Data-Models and DataContexts/ObjectContexts in the same file, then, how should I arrange my VS2008 assemblies in my VS2008 solution to achieve a layered design? If I use repository pattern, how should I arrange my assemblies in the VS2008 solution (as Data-Models and Data/Object-Contexts are stored in the same file...)? Any web/example link would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Java: Make a method abstract for each extending class

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hi, Is there any keyword or design pattern for doing this? public abstract class Root { public abstract void foo(); } public abstract class SubClass extends Root { public void foo() { // Do something } } public class SubberClass extends SubClass { // Here is it not necessary to override foo() // So is there a way to make this necessary? // A way to obligate the developer make again the override } Thanks

    Read the article

  • What design pattern to use for one big method calling many private methods

    - by Jeune
    I have a class that has a big method that calls on a lot of private methods. I think I want to extract those private methods into their own classes for one because they contain business logic and I think they should be public so they can be unit tested. Here's a sample of the code: public void handleRow(Object arg0) { if (continueRunning){ hashData=(HashMap<String, Object>)arg0; Long stdReportId = null; Date effDate=null; if (stdReportIds!=null){ stdReportId = stdReportIds[index]; } if (effDates!=null){ effDate = effDates[index]; } initAndPutPriceBrackets(hashData, stdReportId, effDate); putBrand(hashData,stdReportId,formHandlerFor==0?true:useLiveForFirst); putMultiLangDescriptions(hashData,stdReportId); index++; if (stdReportIds!=null && stdReportIds[0].equals(stdReportIds[1])){ continueRunning=false; } if (formHandlerFor==REPORTS){ putBeginDate(hashData,effDate,custId); } //handle logic that is related to pricemaps. lstOfData.add(hashData); } } What design pattern should I apply to this problem?

    Read the article

  • In M-V-VM where does my code go?

    - by Nate Bross
    So, this is a pretty basic question I hope. I have a web service that I've added through Add Service Reference. It has some methods to get list and get detail of a perticular table in my database. What I'm trying to do is setup a UI as follows: App Load Load service proxy Call the GetList(); method display the results in a ListBox control User Double Clicks item in ListBox, display a modal dialog with a "detail" view I'm extremely new to using MVVM, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Additional information: // Service Interface (simplification): interface IService { IEnumerable<MyObject> GetList(); MyObject GetDetail(int id); } // Data object (simplification) class MyObject { public int ID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } I'm thinking I should have something like this: MainWindow MyObjectViewUserControl Displays list Opens modal window on double click Specific Questions: What would my ViewModel class look like? Where does the code to handle the double click go? Inside the UserControl? Sorry for the long details, but I'm very new to the whole thing and I'm not educated enough to ask the right questions. I checked out the MVVM Sample from wpf.codeplex.com and something isn't quite clicking for me yet, because it seems very confusing.

    Read the article

  • Improving MVP in Scala

    - by Alexey Romanov
    The classical strongly typed MVP pattern looks like this in Scala: trait IView { } trait Presenter[View <: IView] { // or have it as an abstract type member val view : View } case class View1(...) extends IView { ... } case object Presenter1 extends Presenter[View1] { val view = View1(...) } Now, I wonder if there is any nice way to improve on it which I am missing...

    Read the article

  • How to implement Administrator rights in Java Application?

    - by Yatendra Goel
    I am developing a Data Modeling Software that is implemented in Java. This application converts the textual data (stored in a database) to graphical form so that users can interpret the data in a more efficient form. Now, this application will be accessed by 3 kinds of persons: 1. Managers (who can fill the database with data and they can also view the visual form of the data after entering the data into the database) 2. Viewers (who can only view the visual form of data that has been filled by managers) 3. Administrators (who can create and manage other administrators, managers and viewers) Now, how to implement 3 diff. views of the same application. Note: Managers, Viewers and Administrators can be located in any part of the world and should access the application through internet. One idea that came in my mind is as follows: Step1: Code all the business logic in EJBs so that it can be used in distributed environment (means which can be accessed by several users through internet) Step2: Code 3 Swing GUI Clients: One for administrators, one for managers and one for viewers. These 3 GUI clients can access business logic written in EJBs. Step3: Distribute the clients corresponding to their users. For instance, manager client to managers. =================================QUESTIONS======================================= Q1. Is the above approach is correct? Q2. This is very common functionality that various softwares have. So, Do they implement this kind of functionality through this way or any other way? Q3. If any other approach would be more better, then what is that approach?

    Read the article

  • C# MultiThread Safe Class Design

    - by Robert
    I'm trying to designing a class and I'm having issues with accessing some of the nested fields and I have some concerns with how multithread safe the whole design is. I would like to know if anyone has a better idea of how this should be designed or if any changes that should be made? using System; using System.Collections; namespace SystemClass { public class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { System system = new System(); //Seems like an awkward way to access all the members dynamic deviceInstance = (((DeviceType)((DeviceGroup)system.deviceGroups[0]).deviceTypes[0]).deviceInstances[0]); Boolean checkLocked = deviceInstance.locked; //Seems like this method for accessing fields might have problems with multithreading foreach (DeviceGroup dg in system.deviceGroups) { foreach (DeviceType dt in dg.deviceTypes) { foreach (dynamic di in dt.deviceInstances) { checkLocked = di.locked; } } } } } public class System { public ArrayList deviceGroups = new ArrayList(); public System() { //API called to get names of all the DeviceGroups deviceGroups.Add(new DeviceGroup("Motherboard")); } } public class DeviceGroup { public ArrayList deviceTypes = new ArrayList(); public DeviceGroup() {} public DeviceGroup(string deviceGroupName) { //API called to get names of all the Devicetypes deviceTypes.Add(new DeviceType("Keyboard")); deviceTypes.Add(new DeviceType("Mouse")); } } public class DeviceType { public ArrayList deviceInstances = new ArrayList(); public bool deviceConnected; public DeviceType() {} public DeviceType(string DeviceType) { //API called to get hardwareIDs of all the device instances deviceInstances.Add(new Mouse("0001")); deviceInstances.Add(new Keyboard("0003")); deviceInstances.Add(new Keyboard("0004")); //Start thread CheckConnection that updates deviceConnected periodically } public void CheckConnection() { //API call to check connection and returns true this.deviceConnected = true; } } public class Keyboard { public string hardwareAddress; public bool keypress; public bool deviceConnected; public Keyboard() {} public Keyboard(string hardwareAddress) { this.hardwareAddress = hardwareAddress; //Start thread to update deviceConnected periodically } public void CheckKeyPress() { //if API returns true this.keypress = true; } } public class Mouse { public string hardwareAddress; public bool click; public Mouse() {} public Mouse(string hardwareAddress) { this.hardwareAddress = hardwareAddress; } public void CheckClick() { //if API returns true this.click = true; } } }

    Read the article

  • Visitor Pattern can be replaced with Callback functions?

    - by getit
    Is there any significant benefit to using either technique? In case there are variations, the Visitor Pattern I mean is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern And below is an example of using a delegate to achieve the same effect (at least I think it is the same) Say there is a collection of nested elements: Schools contain Departments which contain Students Instead of using the Visitor pattern to perform something on each collection item, why not use a simple callback (Action delegate in C#) Say something like this class Department { List Students; } class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student> actionDelegate) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu); } } } } School A = new School(); ...//populate collections A.Visit((student)=> { ...Do Something with student... }); *EDIT Example with delegate accepting multiple params Say I wanted to pass both the student and department, I could modify the Action definition like so: Action class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student, Department> actionDelegate, Action<Department> d2) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { d2(dep); //This performs a different process. //Using Visitor pattern would avoid having to keep adding new delegates. //This looks like the main benefit so far foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu, dep); } } } }

    Read the article

  • Refactoring Singleton Overuse

    - by drharris
    Today I had an epiphany, and it was that I was doing everything wrong. Some history: I inherited a C# application, which was really just a collection of static methods, a completely procedural mess of C# code. I refactored this the best I knew at the time, bringing in lots of post-college OOP knowledge. To make a long story short, many of the entities in code have turned out to be Singletons. Today I realized I needed 3 new classes, which would each follow the same Singleton pattern to match the rest of the software. If I keep tumbling down this slippery slope, eventually every class in my application will be Singleton, which will really be no logically different from the original group of static methods. I need help on rethinking this. I know about Dependency Injection, and that would generally be the strategy to use in breaking the Singleton curse. However, I have a few specific questions related to this refactoring, and all about best practices for doing so. How acceptable is the use of static variables to encapsulate configuration information? I have a brain block on using static, and I think it is due to an early OO class in college where the professor said static was bad. But, should I have to reconfigure the class every time I access it? When accessing hardware, is it ok to leave a static pointer to the addresses and variables needed, or should I continually perform Open() and Close() operations? Right now I have a single method acting as the controller. Specifically, I continually poll several external instruments (via hardware drivers) for data. Should this type of controller be the way to go, or should I spawn separate threads for each instrument at the program's startup? If the latter, how do I make this object oriented? Should I create classes called InstrumentAListener and InstrumentBListener? Or is there some standard way to approach this? Is there a better way to do global configuration? Right now I simply have Configuration.Instance.Foo sprinkled liberally throughout the code. Almost every class uses it, so perhaps keeping it as a Singleton makes sense. Any thoughts? A lot of my classes are things like SerialPortWriter or DataFileWriter, which must sit around waiting for this data to stream in. Since they are active the entire time, how should I arrange these in order to listen for the events generated when data comes in? Any other resources, books, or comments about how to get away from Singletons and other pattern overuse would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Interpreter in C++: Function table storage problem

    - by sub
    In my interpreter I have built-in functions available in the language like print exit input, etc. These functions can obviously be accessed from inside the language. The interpreter then looks for the corresponding function with the right name in a vector and calls it via a pointer stored with its name. So I gather all these functions in files like io.cpp, string.cpp, arithmetic.cpp. But I have to add every function to the function list in the interpreter in order for it to be found. So in these function files I have things like: void print( arg ) { cout << arg.ToString; } I'd add this print function to the interpreter function list with: interpreter.AddFunc( "print", print ); But where should I call the interpreter.AddFunc? I can't just put it there below the print function as it has to be in a function according to the C++ syntax. Where and how should all the functions be added to the list?

    Read the article

  • Routing redirection decision

    - by programming late night
    I have really no idea why I'm asking this as this a really completely irrelevant question for which I should have figured out an answer within milliseconds, yet I'm doing it. So in my project I have a Router class which splits up the request and selects the right page to be loaded. Fine so far. Now I have a page displayed when the user requests a page that doesn't exist, you know, 404. So theoretically, if the user entered mydomain.com/404 (I use mod_rewrite with a requests collector via index.php?req=*) the 404 error would be shown to him, but in fact there was no error - the 404 page would be displayed as a perfectly normal page. So if someone would try out requesting the 404 page via /404, he would be shown the page but he can't tell if the 404 page he requested doesn't exist and he is actually getting a, you guessed it, 404 error or if he actually found some flaw in the system that makes him able to see an error page when there is no error. I don't know how dumb this whole thing here is but I'm sure some of you have in fact ran into this problem already. Short version: If the user enters mydomain.com/404 the 404 page is shown even though there is no 404 error. I know this is a completely irrelevant question, please don't tell me, but I just spontaneously wanted to hear your thoughts on it. Strange eh? Should I redirect direct access to my 404-page to the home page? Should I do nothing? Should I just go to bed and stop asking irrelevant stuff?

    Read the article

  • C++. How to define template parameter of type T for class A when class T needs a type A template parameter?

    - by jaybny
    Executor class has template of type P and it takes a P object in constructor. Algo class has a template E and also has a static variable of type E. Processor class has template T and a collection of Ts. Question how can I define Executor< Processor<Algo> > and Algo<Executor> ? Is this possible? I see no way to defining this, its kind of an "infinite recursive template argument" See code. template <class T> class Processor { map<string,T> ts; void Process(string str, int i) { ts[str].Do(i); } } template <class P> class Executor { Proc &p; Executor(P &p) : Proc(p) {} void Foo(string str, int i) { p.Process(str,i); } Execute(string str) { } } template <class E> class Algo { static E e; void Do(int i) {} void Foo() { e.Execute("xxx"); } } main () { typedef Processor<Algo> PALGO; // invalid typedef Executor<PALGO> EPALGO; typedef Algo<EPALGO> AEPALGO; Executor<PALGO> executor(PALGO()); AEPALGO::E = executor; }

    Read the article

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