Search Results

Search found 32789 results on 1312 pages for 'object relational mapping'.

Page 62/1312 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

• Empty String API arguments for actionwebservice received as "SOAP::Mapping::Object" instead of ""

  - by user311985

  I've built an API using actionwebservice and when a client calls a method to pass in an empty string (""), it's to_s value is # instead of "". But when the client passes in "hello", it's to_s value is "hello". class UsersApiController < ApiController web_service_api UserApi def create_or_update(arg1) Rails.logger.info arg1.to_s # Displays "#<SOAP::Mapping::Object:0x3a89c08>" if arg1 is an empty string end end

  Read the article

• facebook open graph meta property og:type of 'website'. The property 'object-name' requires an object of og:type 'object-name'

  - by chinmayahd

  in cake php 1.3 in view ctp i have follow code: $url = 'http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'fb:app_id', 'content' => '*******'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:type', 'content' => 'book'),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:url', 'content' => $url ),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:title', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:description', 'content' => $book['Book']['title']),'',array('inline'=>false)); $imgurl = '../image/'.$book['Book']['id']; echo $this->Html->meta(array('property' => 'og:image', 'content' => $imgurl ),'',array('inline'=>false)); ?> and it gives the following error when i am posting it' { "error": { "message": "(#3502) Object at URL http://example.com/exmp/explus/books/view/234' has og:type of 'website'. The property 'book' requires an object of og:type 'book'. ", "type": "OAuthException", "code": 3502 } } is any one know how to solve it?

  Read the article

• How to map a property with formula in NHibernate?

  - by yapiskan

  I have a class which I want to add a property with using formula attribute. Here is the mapping that I use in mapping file. <property name="CurrentUserVote" type="Climate.Domain.Vote, Climate.Domain" formula="(select v from Vote v where v.AchievementId=Id and (v.IP=:CurrentUserVoteFilter.CurrentUserIP))"></property> As you see, I want this property to be an object which refers to class that already has an nhibernate mapping. Is it possible to map a property with formula attribute to a class? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Ordered many-to-many relationship in NHibernate

  - by Kristoffer

  Let's say I have two classes: Item and ItemCollection, where ItemCollection contains an ordered list of Item objects with an index, i.e. the list is ordered in a way specified by the user. Let's also say that they have a many-to-many relationship, an ItemCollection can contain many items and an Item can belong to several ItemCollections. That would, in my head, require three tables in the database. One for Item, one for ItemCollection and one for the ordered mapping. The mapping table would contain three columns: int ItemID int ItemCollectionID int ListIndex QUESTION: How would you design the ItemCollection class? Should the list of Item objects be a list, dictionary or other? What would the NHibernate mapping look like to get the ListIndex into the picture?

  Read the article

• Web workflow solution - how should I approach the design?

  - by Tom Pickles

  We've been tasked with creating a web based workflow tool to track change management. It has a single workflow with multiple synchronous tasks for the most part, but branch out at a point to tasks running in parallel which meet up later on. There will be all sorts of people using the application, and all of them will need to see their outstanding tasks for each change, but only theirs, not others. There will also be a high level group of people who oversee all changes, so need to see everything. They will need to see tasks which have not been done in the specified time, who's responsible etc. The data will be persisted to a SQL database. It'll all be put together using .Net. I've been trying to learn and implement OOP into my designs of late, but I'm wondering if this is moot in this instance as it may be better to have the business logic for this in stored procedures in the DB. I could use POCO's, a front end layer and a data access layer for the web application and just use it as a mechanism for CRUD actions on the DB, then use SP's fired in the DB to apply the business rules. On the other hand, I could use an object oriented design within the web app, but as the data in the app is state-less, is this a bad idea? I could try and model out the whole application into a class structure, implementing interfaces, base classes and all that good stuff. So I would create a change class, which contained a list of task classes/types, which defined each task, and implement an ITask interface etc. Put end-user types into the tasks to identify who should be doing what task. Then apply all the business logic in the respective class methods etc. What approach do you guys think I should be using for this solution?

  Read the article

• When too much encapsulation was reached

  - by Samuel

  Recently, I read a lot of gook articles about how to do a good encapsulation. And when I say "good encapsulation", I don't talk about hiding private fields with public properties; I talk about preventing users of your Api to do wrong things. Here is two good articles about this subject: http://blog.ploeh.dk/2011/05/24/PokayokeDesignFromSmellToFragrance.aspx http://lostechies.com/derickbailey/2011/03/28/encapsulation-youre-doing-it-wrong/ At my job, the majority a our applications are not destined to other programmers but rather to the customers. About 80% of the application code is at the top of the structure (Not used by other code). For this reason, there is probably no chance ever that this code will be used by other application. An example of encapsulation that prevent user to do wrong thing with your Api is to return an IEnumerable instead of IList when you don't want to give the ability to the user to add or remove items in the list. My question is: When encapsulation could be considered like too much of purism object oriented programming while keeping in mind that each hour of programming is charged to the customer? I want to do good code that is maintainable, easy to read and to use but when this is not a public Api (Used by other programmer), where could we put the line between perfect code and not so perfect code? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Manager/Container class vs static class methods

  - by Ben

  Suppose I a have a Widget class that is part of a framework used independently by many applications. I create Widget instances in many situations and their lifetimes vary. In addition to Widget's instance specified methods, I would like to be able to perform the follow class wide operations: Find a single Widget instance based on a unique id Iterate over the list of all Widgets Remove a widget from the set of all widgets In order support these operations, I have been considering two approaches: Container class - Create some container or manager class, WidgetContainer, which holds a list of all Widget instances, support iteration and provides methods for Widget addition, removal and lookup. For example in C#: public class WidgetContainer : IEnumerable<Widget { public void AddWidget(Widget); public Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); } Static class methods - Add static class methods to Widget. For example: public class Widget { public Widget(WidgetId id); public static Widget GetWidget(WidgetId id); public static void RemoveWidget(WidgetId id); public static IEnumerable<Widget AllWidgets(); } Using a container class has the added problem of how to access the container class. Make it a singleton?..yuck! Create some World object that provides access to all such container classes? I have seen many frameworks that use the container class approach, so what is the general consensus?

  Read the article

• Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

  - by Brad

  I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

  Read the article

• Getting rid of Massive View Controller in iOS?

  - by Earl Grey

  I had a discussion with my colleague about the following problem. We have an application where we need filtering functionality. On any main screen within the upper navigation bar, there is a button in the upper right corner. Once you touch that button, an custom written Alert View like view will pop up modally, behind it a semitransparent black overlay view. In that modal view, there is a table view of options, and you can choose one exclusively. Based on your selection, once this modal view is closed, the list of items in the main view is filtered. It is simply a modally presented filter to filter the main table view.This UI design is dictated by the design department, I cannot do anything about it so let accept this as a premise. Also the main filter button in the navbar will change colours to indicate that the filter is active. The question I have is about implementation. I suggested to my colleague that we create a separate XYZFilter class that will be an instance created by the main view controller acquire the filtering options handle saving and restoration of its state - i.e. last filter selected provide its two views - the overlay view and the modal view be the datasource for the table in its modal view. For some unknown reason, my colleague was not impressed by that approach at all. He simply wants to do these functionalities in the main view controller, maybe out of being used to do this in the past like that :-/ Is there any fundamental problem with my approach? I want to keep the view controller small, not to have spaghetti code create a reusable component (for use outside the project) have more object oriented, decoupled approach. prevent duplication of code as we need the filtering in two different places but it looks the same in both.. Any advice?

  Read the article

• Architectural Composition Languages

  - by C. Lawrence Wenham

  Recently stumbled upon this paper (PDF) talking about ACLs, or Architectural Composition Languages. They're a fusion of two earlier lines of research: Architectural Definition Languages (such as UML) and Object Composition Languages (such as XAML, WWF, or scripting languages). The goal of an ACL is to have a high-level description of a program's architecture which can also be compiled into a runnable program. The high-level description assists automated analysis, while the 'executability' means changes can be tested immediately. You would still author the components of the program in a conventional programming language (C, Java, Python, etc), but they would be composed into a complete program by the ACL. One of the expected benefits is that a program can be ported to a different platform by swapping in "similar but different" components. I've been hankering for something like this for a long time (see this answer I gave on a StackOverflow question a few years ago). The paper mentions that the researchers were working on a language called ACL/1 that initially targeted Java, but would be ported to support .Net as well. However, I can't find any more mention of ACL/1 anywhere. Has there been any more work done on this? Are there any other implementations of the ACL concept that are available for use or experimentation?

  Read the article

• What is the ideal length of a method?

  - by iPhoneDeveloper

  In object-oriented programming, there is no exact rule on the maximum length of a method , but I still found these two qutes somewhat contradicting each other, so I would like to hear what you think. In Clean Code: A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship, Robert Martin says: The first rule of functions is that they should be small. The second rule of functions is that they should be smaller than that. Functions should not be 100 lines long. Functions should hardly ever be 20 lines long. and he gives an example from Java code he sees from Kent Beck: Every function in his program was just two, or three, or four lines long. Each was transparently obvious. Each told a story. And each led you to the next in a compelling order. That’s how short your functions should be! This sounds great, but on the other hand, in Code Complete, Steve McConnell says something very different: The routine should be allowed to grow organically up to 100-200 lines, decades of evidence say that routines of such length no more error prone then shorter routines. And he gives a reference to a study that says routines 65 lines or long are cheaper to develop. So while there are diverging opinions about the matter, is there a functional best-practice towards determining the ideal length of a method for you?

  Read the article

• How to drastically improve code coverage?

  - by Peter Kofler

  I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

  Read the article

• Anyone know a good mind mapper that works with a scheduler?

  - by GLycan

  TL;DR: Mind mapping tasks to be processed into a schedule based on task metadata. I have all sorts of ideas about what to invest resources (mainly time) in, but when I actually have time to do something I useually end up browsing reddit for not knowing what do to, and the frequancy with which I forget deadlines scares me. I'd love to bring order and structure into my mind, and always know what to do next. So, I want a mind mapping app, where I'd give each branch (types and subtypes of things I want to do) a importance score (if there were two branches, and one had 60 while the other 40, they would respectivily get 60% and 40% of the parent's importance, with the root being 100) and a how soon that branch should be revised/updated (an hobby I want to try out might be checked, say, once a week, while a school subject should be checked once a day) and give each leaf (something I want/need to do) how much time it takes, deadline (if any), and optionally an absolute importance, reoccurrence (guitar practice might repeat once a week), and prerequisites (reading something requires that book (although that could be brought somewhere), coding requires a box, jogging requires being outside) and maybe some other flags, like if it's enjoyable or not. It should either be packaged or working with a schedular app, to which I'd say, look, my day works this way (completely busy from 8 to 9:15, then 15 minutes of being inside with nothing, ..., two hours with box and possibility to go outside, etc), saying that such-and-such pattern is school and happens ever weekday except such-and-such days. The output should be of the form of a schedule, fit for printing or, when I finally get an android, mobile viewing, that schedules tasks with regards to availability of resources and importance (importance being derived from the leaf-task's parent branches), and the set of flags (all work and no play makes me a dull boy). One of these tasks should be reviewing anything that should be updated on that day, including future day layouts (e.g, if the time slots of future days have changed. This should be done every day.) Does anyone know some collection of preferably open-source (or free, or pirateable) tools, or better yet a single one, that accomplishes this task? I know python pretty well, and should be able to write any necessary glue.

  Read the article

• Teaching OO to VBA developers [closed]

  - by Eugene

  I work with several developers that come from less object oriented background like (VB6, VBA) and are mostly self-taught. As part of moving away from those technologies we recently we started having weekly workshops to go over the features of C#.NET and OO practices and design principles. After a couple of weeks of basic introduction I noticed that they had a lot of problems implementing even basic code. For instance it took probably 15 minutes to implement a Stack.push() and a full hour to implement a simple Stack fully. These developers were trying to do things like passing top index as a parameter to the method, not creating an private array, using variables out of scope. But most of all not going through the "design (dia/mono)log" (I need something to do X, so maybe I'll make an array, or put it here). I am a little confused because they are smart people and are able to produce functional code in their traditional environments. I'm curious if anybody else has encountered a similar thing and if there are any particular resources, exercises, books, ideas that would be helpful in this circumstance.

  Read the article

• Inheritance vs composition in this example

  - by Gerenuk

  I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

  Read the article

• Is creating a separate pool for each individual image created from a png appropriate?

  - by Panzercrisis

  I'm still possibly a little green about object-pooling, and I want to make sure something like this is a sound design pattern before really embarking upon it. Take the following code (which uses the Starling framework in ActionScript 3): [Embed(source = "/../assets/images/game/misc/red_door.png")] private const RED_DOOR:Class; private const RED_DOOR_TEXTURE:Texture = Texture.fromBitmap(new RED_DOOR()); private const m_vRedDoorPool:Vector.<Image> = new Vector.<Image>(50, true); . . . public function produceRedDoor():Image { // get a Red Door image } public function retireRedDoor(pImage:Image):void { // retire a Red Door Image } Except that there are four colors: red, green, blue, and yellow. So now we have a separate pool for each color, a separate produce function for each color, and a separate retire function for each color. Additionally there are several items in the game that follow this 4-color pattern, so for each of them, we have four pools, four produce functions, and four retire functions. There are more colors involved in the images themselves than just their predominant one, so trying to throw all the doors, for instance, in a single pool, and then changing their color properties around isn't going to work. Also the nonexistence of the static keyword is due to its slowness in AS3. Is this the right way to do things?

  Read the article

• Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

  - by Kaleb Pederson

  The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

  Read the article

• Is creating a separate pool for each individual png image in the same class appropriate?

  - by Panzercrisis

  I'm still possibly a little green about object-pooling, and I want to make sure something like this is a sound design pattern before really embarking upon it. Take the following code (which uses the Starling framework in ActionScript 3): [Embed(source = "/../assets/images/game/misc/red_door.png")] private const RED_DOOR:Class; private const RED_DOOR_TEXTURE:Texture = Texture.fromBitmap(new RED_DOOR()); private const m_vRedDoorPool:Vector.<Image> = new Vector.<Image>(50, true); . . . public function produceRedDoor():Image { // get a Red Door image } public function retireRedDoor(pImage:Image):void { // retire a Red Door Image } Except that there are four colors: red, green, blue, and yellow. So now we have a separate pool for each color, a separate produce function for each color, and a separate retire function for each color. Additionally there are several items in the game that follow this 4-color pattern, so for each of them, we have four pools, four produce functions, and four retire functions. There are more colors involved in the images themselves than just their predominant one, so trying to throw all the doors, for instance, in a single pool, and then changing their color properties around isn't going to work. Also the nonexistence of the static keyword is due to its slowness in AS3. Is this the right way to do things?

  Read the article

• What type of pattern would be used in this case

  - by Admiral Kunkka

  I want to know how to tackle this type of scenario. We are building a person's background, from scratch, and I want to know, conceptually, how to proceed with a secure object pattern in both design and execution... I've been reading on Factory patterns, Model-View-Controller types, Dependency injection, Singleton approaches... and I can't seem to grasp or 'fit' these types of designs decisions into what I'm trying to do.. First and foremost, I started with having a big jack-of-all-trades class, then I read some more, and some tips were to make sure your classes only have a single purpose.. which makes sense and I started breaking down certain things into other classes. Okay, cool. Now I'm looking at dependency injection and kind of didn't really know what's going on. Example/insight of what kind of heirarchy I need to accomplish... class Person needs to access and build from a multitude of different classes. class Culture needs to access a sub-class for culture benefits class Social needs to access class Culture, and other sub-classes class Birth needs to access Social, Culture, and other sub-classes class Childhood/Adolescence/Adulthood need to access everything. Also, depending on different rolls, this class heirarchy needs to create multiple people as well, such as Family, and their backgrounds using some, if not all, of these same classes. Think of it as a people generator, all random, with backgrounds and things that happen to them. Ageing, death of loved ones, military careers, e.t.c. Most of the generation is done randomly, making calls to a mt_rand function to pick from most of the selections inside the classes, guaranteeing the data to be absolutely random. I have most of the bulk-data down, and was looking for some insight from fellow programmers, what do you think?

  Read the article

• Do objects maintain identity under all non-cloning conditions in PHP?

  - by Buttle Butkus

  PHP 5.5 I'm doing a bunch of passing around of objects with the assumption that they will all maintain their identities - that any changes made to their states from inside other objects' methods will continue to hold true afterwards. Am I assuming correctly? I will give my basic structure here. class builder { protected $foo_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $foo_collection; protected $bar_ids = array(); // set in construct protected $bar_collection; protected function initFoos() { $this->foo_collection = new FooCollection(); foreach($this->food_ids as $id) { $this->foo_collection->addFoo(new foo($id)); } } protected function initBars() { // same idea as initFoos } protected function wireFoosAndBars(fooCollection $foos, barCollection $bars) { // arguments are passed in using $this->foo_collection and $this->bar_collection foreach($foos as $foo_obj) { // (foo_collection implements IteratorAggregate) $bar_ids = $foo_obj->getAssociatedBarIds(); if(!empty($bar_ids) ) { $bar_collection = new barCollection(); // sub-collection to be a component of each foo foreach($bar_ids as $bar_id) { $bar_collection->addBar(new bar($bar_id)); } $foo_obj->addBarCollection($bar_collection); // now each foo_obj has a collection of bar objects, each of which is also in the main collection. Are they the same objects? } } } } What has me worried is that foreach supposedly works on a copy of its arrays. I want all the $foo and $bar objects to maintain their identities no matter which $collection object they become of a part of. Does that make sense?

  Read the article

• Are there design patterns or generalised approaches for particle simulations?

  - by romeovs

  I'm working on a project (for college) in C++. The goal is to write a program that can more or less simulate a beam of particles flying trough the LHC synchrotron. Not wanting to rush into things, me and my team are thinking about how to implement this and I was wondering if there are general design patterns that are used to solve this kind of problem. The general approach we came up with so far is the following: there is a World that holds all objects you can add objects to this world such as Particle, Dipole and Quadrupole time is cut up into discrete steps, and at each point in time, for each Particle the magnetic and electric forces that each object in the World generates are calculated and summed up (luckily electro-magnetism is linear). each Particle moves accordingly (using a simple estimation approach to solve the differential movement equations) save the Particle positions repeat This seems a good approach but, for instance, it is hard to take into account symmetries that might be present (such as the magnetic field of each Quadrupole) and is this thus suboptimal. To take into account such symmetries as that of the Quadrupole field, it would be much easier to (also) make space discrete and somehow store form of the Quadrupole field somewhere. (Since 2532 or so Quadrupoles are stored this should lead to a massive gain of performance, not having to recalculate each Quadrupole field) So, are there any design patterns? Is the World-approach feasible or is it old-fashioned, bad programming? What about symmetry, how is that generally taken into acount?

  Read the article

• How to store a list of Objects that might change in future?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  I have set of Objects of the same class which have different values of their attributes. and I need to find the best match from a function under given scenarios out of these objects. In future these objects might increase as well. Quite similar to the way we have Color class in awt. we have some static color objects in the class with diff rgb values. But in my case say, I need to chose the suitable color out of these static ones based on certain criteria. So should I keep them in an arrayList or enum or keep them as static vars as in case of Colors. because I will need to parse through all of them and decide upon the best match. so I need them in some sort of collection. But in future if I need to add another type I will have to modify the class and add another list.add(object) call for this one and then it will violate the open-close principle. How should I go about it ?

  Read the article

• How do you map a composite id to a composite user type with Fluent NHibernate?

  - by gabe

  i'm working w/ a legacy database is set-up stupidly with an index composed of a char id column and two char columns which make up a date and time, respectively. I have created a icompositeusertype for the date and time columns to map to a single .NET DateTime property on my entity, which works by itself when not part of the id. i need to somehow use a composite id with key property mapping that includes my icompositeusertype for mapping to the two char date and time columns. Apparently w/ my version of Fluent NHibernate, CompositeIdentityPart doesn't have a CustomTypeIs() method, so i can't just do the following in my override: mapping.UseCompositeId() .WithKeyProperty(x => x.Id, CommonDatabaseFieldNames.Id) .WithKeyProperty(x => x.FileCreationDateTime) .CustomTypeIs<FileCreationDateTimeType>(); is something like this even possible w/ NHibernate let alone Fluent? I haven't been able to find anything on this.

  Read the article

• FP for simulation and modelling

  - by heaptobesquare

  I'm about to start a simulation/modelling project. I already know that OOP is used for this kind of projects. However, studying Haskell made me consider using the FP paradigm for modelling a system of components. Let me elaborate: Let's say I have a component of type A, characterised by a set of data (a parameter like temperature or pressure,a PDE and some boundary conditions,etc.) and a component of type B, characterised by a different set of data(different or same parameter, different PDE and boundary conditions). Let's also assume that the functions/methods that are going to be applied on each component are the same (a Galerkin method for example). If I were to use an OOP approach, I would create two objects that would encapsulate each type's data, the methods for solving the PDE(inheritance would be used here for code reuse) and the solution to the PDE. On the other hand, if I were to use an FP approach, each component would be broken down to data parts and the functions that would act upon the data in order to get the solution for the PDE. This approach seems simpler to me assuming that linear operations on data would be trivial and that the parameters are constant. What if the parameters are not constant(for example, temperature increases suddenly and therefore cannot be immutable)? In OOP, the object's (mutable) state can be used. I know that Haskell has Monads for that. To conclude, would implementing the FP approach be actually simpler,less time consuming and easier to manage (add a different type of component or new method to solve the pde) compared to the OOP one? I come from a C++/Fortran background, plus I'm not a professional programmer, so correct me on anything that I've got wrong.

  Read the article

• Should I build a multi-threaded system that handles events from a game and sorts them, independently, into different threads based on priority?

  - by JonathonG

  Can I build a multi-threaded system that handles events from a game and sorts them, independently, into different threads based on priority, and is it a good idea? Here's more info: I am about to begin work on porting a mid-sized game from Flash/AS3 to Java so that I can continue development with multi-threading capabilities. Here's a small bit of background about the game: The game contains numerous asynchronous activities, such as "world updating" (the game environment is constantly changing based on a set of natural laws and forces), procedural generation of terrain, NPCs, quests, items, etc., and on top of that, the effects of all of the player's interactions with his environment are programmatically calculated in real time, based on a set of constantly changing "stats" and once again, natural laws and forces. All of these things going on at once, in an asynchronous manner, seem to lend themselves to multi-threading very well. My question is: Can I build some kind of central engine that handles the "stacking" of all of these events as they are triggered, and dynamically sorts them out amongst the available threads, and would it be a good idea? As an example: Essentially, every time something happens (IE, a magic missile being generated by a spell, or a bunch of plants need to grow to their next stage), instead of just processing that task right then and adding the new object(s) to a list of managed objects, send a reference to that event to a core "event handler" that throws it into a stack of all other currently queued events, which then sorts them out and orders them according to urgency, splits them between a number of available threads for as-fast-as-possible multithreaded execution.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >