Search Results

Search found 71115 results on 2845 pages for 'file patterns'.

Page 63/2845 | < Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >

• Updating and organizing class diagrams in a growing C++ project

  - by vanna

  I am working on a C++ project that is getting bigger and bigger. I do a lot of UML so it is not really hard to explain my work to co-workers. Lately though I implemented a lot of new features and I gave up updating by hand my Dia UML diagrams. I once used the class diagram of Visual Studio, which is my IDE but didn't get clear results. I need to show my work on a regular basis and I would like to be as clear as possible. Is there any tool that could generate a sort of organized map of my work (namespaces, classes, interactions, etc.) ?

  Read the article

• Anemic Domain Model, Business Logic and DataMapper (PHP)

  - by sunwukung

  I've implemented a rudimentary ORM layer based on DataMapper (I don't want to use a full blown ORM like Propel/Doctrine - for anything beyond simple fetch/save ops I prefer to access the data directly layer using a SQL abstraction layer). Following the DataMapper pattern, I've endeavoured to keep all persistence operations in the Mapper - including the location of related entities. My Entities have access to their Mapper, although I try not to call Mapper logic from the Entity interface (although this would be simple enough). The result is: // get a mapper and produce an entity $ProductMapper = $di->get('product_mapper'); $Product = $ProductMapper->find('[email protected]','email'); //.. mutaute some values.. save $ProductMapper->save($Product) // uses __get to trigger relation acquisition $Manufacturer = $Product->manufacturer; I've read some articles regarding the concept of an Anemic Domain model, i.e. a Model that does not contain any "business logic". When demonstrating the sort of business logic ideally suited to a Domain Model, however, acquiring related data items is a common example. Therefore I wanted to ask this question: Is persistence logic appropriate in Domain Model objects?

  Read the article

• Strategies for avoiding SQL in your Controllers... or how many methods should I have in my Models?

  - by Keith Palmer

  So a situation I run into reasonably often is one where my models start to either: Grow into monsters with tons and tons of methods OR Allow you to pass pieces of SQL to them, so that they are flexible enough to not require a million different methods For example, say we have a "widget" model. We start with some basic methods: get($id) insert($record) update($id, $record) delete($id) getList() // get a list of Widgets That's all fine and dandy, but then we need some reporting: listCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listPurchasedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listOfPending() And then the reporting starts to get complex: listPendingCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listForCustomer($customer_id) listPendingCreatedBetweenForCustomer($customer_id, $start_date, $end_date) You can see where this is growing... eventually we have so many specific query requirements that I either need to implement tons and tons of methods, or some sort of "query" object that I can pass to a single -query(query $query) method... ... or just bite the bullet, and start doing something like this: list = MyModel-query(" start_date X AND end_date < Y AND pending = 1 AND customer_id = Z ") There's a certain appeal to just having one method like that instead of 50 million other more specific methods... but it feels "wrong" sometimes to stuff a pile of what's basically SQL into the controller. Is there a "right" way to handle situations like this? Does it seem acceptable to be stuffing queries like that into a generic -query() method? Are there better strategies?

  Read the article

• How do I reuse a state machine in a slightly different way?

  - by JoJo

  Problem I have a big state machine. The design requirements of the project have changed such that I need to re-use this state machine in another place. All the states remain the same in this new place, but a few states run slightly different stuff. What design pattern allows me to reuse this state machine? Motivation I am building a video player. It is modeled by a state machine with these states: stopped, loading, playing, paused, crashed, and some more... This video player needs to be used on two web pages. When the player crashes on the first page, it should show an error message below. If the player crashes on the second page, the error message should appear in the center of the video and pulsate a few times.

  Read the article

• IoC containers and service locator pattern

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I am trying to get an understanding of Inversion of Control and the dos and donts of this. Of all the articles I read, there is one by Mark Seemann (which is widely linked to in SO) which strongly asks folks not to use the service locator pattern. Then somewhere along the way, I came across this article by Ken where he helps us build our own IoC. I noticed that is is nothing but an implementation of service locator pattern. Questions: Is my observation correct that this implementation is the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is yes, then Do all IoC containers (like Autofac) use the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is no, then why is this differen? Is there any other pattern (other than DI) for inversion of control?

  Read the article

• Extension objects pattern

  - by voroninp

  In this MSDN Magazine article Peter Vogel describes Extension Objects partten. What is not clear is whether extensions can be later implemented by client code residing in a separate assembly. And if so how in this case can extension get acces to private members of the objet being extended? I quite often need to set different access levels for different classes. Sometimes I really need that descendants does not have access to the mebmer but separate class does. (good old friend classes) Now I solve this in C# by exposing callback properties in interface of the external class and setting them with private methods. This also alows to adjust access: read only or read|write depending on the desired interface. class Parent { private int foo; public void AcceptExternal(IFoo external) { external.GetFooCallback = () => this.foo; } } interface IFoo { Func<int> GetFooCallback {get;set;} } Other way is to explicitly implement particular interface. But I suspect more aspproaches exist.

  Read the article

• How Visual Studio could help to avoid duplicating code?

  - by MegaMind

  I work within a team of developers. Everyone is making their changes without carrying too much if the same thing is already implemented in the codebase. This leads to classes constantly growing and to severe duplication. I want to add line items to class definitions from which a developer could judge what this class has. Would it help? How to do it in Visual Studio? If it wouldn't help, what would be the better alternative to encourage the developers to check if something exists before implementing it?

  Read the article

• Why are MVC & TDD not employed more in game architecture?

  - by secoif

  I will preface this by saying I haven't looked a huge amount of game source, nor built much in the way of games. But coming from trying to employ 'enterprise' coding practices in web apps, looking at game source code seriously hurts my head: "What is this view logic doing in with business logic? this needs refactoring... so does this, refactor, refactorrr" This worries me as I'm about to start a game project, and I'm not sure whether trying to mvc/tdd the dev process is going to hinder us or help us, as I don't see many game examples that use this or much push for better architectural practices it in the community. The following is an extract from a great article on prototyping games, though to me it seemed exactly the attitude many game devs seem to use when writing production game code: Mistake #4: Building a system, not a game ...if you ever find yourself working on something that isn’t directly moving your forward, stop right there. As programmers, we have a tendency to try to generalize our code, and make it elegant and be able to handle every situation. We find that an itch terribly hard not scratch, but we need to learn how. It took me many years to realize that it’s not about the code, it’s about the game you ship in the end. Don’t write an elegant game component system, skip the editor completely and hardwire the state in code, avoid the data-driven, self-parsing, XML craziness, and just code the damned thing. ... Just get stuff on the screen as quickly as you can. And don’t ever, ever, use the argument “if we take some extra time and do this the right way, we can reuse it in the game”. EVER. is it because games are (mostly) visually oriented so it makes sense that the code will be weighted heavily in the view, thus any benefits from moving stuff out to models/controllers, is fairly minimal, so why bother? I've heard the argument that MVC introduces a performance overhead, but this seems to me to be a premature optimisation, and that there'd more important performance issues to tackle before you worry about MVC overheads (eg render pipeline, AI algorithms, datastructure traversal, etc). Same thing regarding TDD. It's not often I see games employing test cases, but perhaps this is due to the design issues above (mixed view/business) and the fact that it's difficult to test visual components, or components that rely on probablistic results (eg operate within physics simulations). Perhaps I'm just looking at the wrong source code, but why do we not see more of these 'enterprise' practices employed in game design? Are games really so different in their requirements, or is a people/culture issue (ie game devs come from a different background and thus have different coding habits)?

  Read the article

• Learning how to design knowledge and data flow [closed]

  - by max

  In designing software, I spend a lot of time deciding how the knowledge (algorithms / business logic) and data should be allocated between different entities; that is, which object should know what. I am asking for advice about books, articles, presentations, classes, or other resources that would help me learn how to do it better. I code primarily in Python, but my question is not really language-specific; even if some of the insights I learn don't work in Python, that's fine. I'll give a couple examples to clarify what I mean. Example 1 I want to perform some computation. As a user, I will need to provide parameters to do the computation. I can have all those parameters sent to the "main" object, which then uses them to create other objects as needed. Or I can create one "main" object, as well as several additional objects; the additional objects would then be sent to the "main" object as parameters. What factors should I consider to make this choice? Example 2 Let's say I have a few objects of type A that can perform a certain computation. The main computation often involves using an object of type B that performs some interim computation. I can either "teach" A instances what exact parameters to pass to B instances (i.e., make B "dumb"); or I can "teach" B instances to figure out what needs to be done when looking at an A instance (i.e., make B "smart"). What should I think about when I'm making this choice?

  Read the article

• Updating query results

  - by Francisco Garcia

  Within a DDD and CQRS context, a query result is displayed as table rows. Whenever new rows are inserted or deleted, their positions must be calculated by comparing the previous query result with the most recent one. This is needed to visualize with an animation new or deleted rows. The model of my view contains an array of the displayed query results. But I need a place to compare its contents against the latest query. Right now I consider my model view part of my application layer, but the comparison of two query result sets seems something that must be done within the domain layer. Which component should cache a query result and which one compare them? Are view models (and their cached contents) supposed to be in the application layer?

  Read the article

• How do you plan your asynchronous code?

  - by NullOrEmpty

  I created a library that is a invoker for a web service somewhere else. The library exposes asynchronous methods, since web service calls are a good candidate for that matter. At the beginning everything was just fine, I had methods with easy to understand operations in a CRUD fashion, since the library is a kind of repository. But then business logic started to become complex, and some of the procedures involves the chaining of many of these asynchronous operations, sometimes with different paths depending on the result value, etc.. etc.. Suddenly, everything is very messy, to stop the execution in a break point it is not very helpful, to find out what is going on or where in the process timeline have you stopped become a pain... Development becomes less quick, less agile, and to catch those bugs that happens once in a 1000 times becomes a hell. From the technical point, a repository that exposes asynchronous methods looked like a good idea, because some persistence layers could have delays, and you can use the async approach to do the most of your hardware. But from the functional point of view, things became very complex, and considering those procedures where a dozen of different calls were needed... I don't know the real value of the improvement. After read about TPL for a while, it looked like a good idea for managing tasks, but in the moment you have to combine them and start to reuse existing functionality, things become very messy. I have had a good experience using it for very concrete scenarios, but bad experience using them broadly. How do you work asynchronously? Do you use it always? Or just for long running processes? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?

  - by Daniel Hilgarth

  Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern: public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler { public bool CanHandle(object command) { return command is FooCommand; } public void Handle(object command) { var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command; // Do something with fooCommand } } Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle without verifying the command via CanHandle, the code in Handle throws an exception. However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle this can be a whole range of different exceptions. The following implementation would check CanHandle again in Handle and throw a descriptive exception: public void Handle(object command) { if(!CanHandle(command)) throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first"); // actual implementation of handling the command. } This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive. It has the disadvantage that CanHandle is called twice for "good" clients. Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?

  Read the article

• How to refactor to cleaner version of maintaing states of the widget

  - by George

  Backstory I inherited a bunch of code that I'd like to refactor. It is a UI application written in javascript. Current state: We have main application which consist of several UI components. And each component has entry fields, textboxes, menus, etc), like "ticket", "customer information", etc. Based on input, where the application was called from, who is the user, we enable/disable, hide, show, change titles. Unfortunately, the app grew to the point where it is really hard to scale, add new features. Main the driver (application code) calls set/unset functions of the respective components. So a lot of the stuff look like this Main app unit function1() { **call_function2()** component1.setX(true); component1.setY(true); component2.setX(false); } call_function2() { // it may repeat some of the code function1 called } and we have a lot of this in the main union. I am cleaning this mess. What is the best way to maintain the state of widgets? Please let me know if you need me to clarify.

  Read the article

• How to Avoid a Busy Loop Inside a Function That Returns the Object That's Being Waited For

  - by Carl Smith

  I have a function which has the same interface as Python's input builtin, but it works in a client-server environment. When it's called, the function, which runs in the server, sends a message to the client, asking it to get some input from the user. The user enters some stuff, or dismisses the prompt, and the result is passed back to the server, which passes it to the function. The function then returns the result. The function must work like Python's input [that's the spec], so it must block until it has the result. This is all working, but it uses a busy loop, which, in practice, could easily be spinning for many minutes. Currently, the function tells the client to get the input, passing an id. The client returns the result with the id. The server puts the result in a dictionary, with the id as the key. The function basically waits for that key to exist. def input(): '''simplified example''' key = unique_key() tell_client_to_get_input(key) while key not in dictionary: pass return dictionary.pop(pin) Using a callback would be the normal way to go, but the input function must block until the result is available, so I can't see how that could work. The spec can't change, as Python will be using the new input function for stuff like help and pdb, which provide their own little REPLs. I have a lot of flexibility in terms of how everything works overall, but just can't budge on the function acting exactly like Python's. Is there any way to return the result as soon as it's available, without the busy loop?

  Read the article

• How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

  - by Ophir Yoktan

  I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

  Read the article

• How to layer if statements when order of logic is irrelevant?

  - by jimmyjimmy

  Basically I have a series of logic in my website that can lead to 5 total outcomes. Basically two different if tests and then a catch all else statement. For example: if cond1: if mod1: #do things elif mod2: #do things elif cond2: if mod1: #do things elif mod2 #do things else: #do things I was thinking about rewriting it like this: if cond1 and mod1: #do things elif cond1 and mod2: #do things elif cond2 and mod1: #do things elif cond2 and mod2: #do things else: #do things Is there any real difference in these two coding options/a better choice for this kind of logic testing?

  Read the article

• Figuring out the Call chain

  - by BDotA

  Let's say I have an assemblyA that has a method which creates an instance of assemblyB and calls its MethodFoo(). Now assemblyB also creates an instance of assemblyC and calls MethodFoo(). So no matter if I start with assemblyB in the code flow or with assemlyA, at the end we are calling that MethodFoo of AssemblyC(). My question is when I am in the MethodFoo() how can I know who has called me? Has it been a call originally from assemblyA or was it from assemlyB? Is there any design pattern or a good OO way of solving this?

  Read the article

• When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

  - by missingno

  Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

  Read the article

• What is the good way of sharing specific data between ViewModels

  - by voroninp

  We have IAppContext which is injected into ViewModel. This service contains shared data: global filters and other application wide properties. But there are cases when data is very specific. For example one VM implements Master and the second one - Details of selected tree item. Thus DetailsVm must know about the selected item and its changes. We can store this information either in IAppContext or inside each concerned VM. In both cases update notifications are sent via Messenger. I see pros and cons for any of the approaches and can not decide which one is better. 1st: + explicitly exposed shared proerties, easy to follow dependencies - IAppContxt becomes cluttered with very specific data. 2nd: the exact opposite of the first and more memory load due to data duplication. May be someone can offer design alternatives or tell that one of the variants is objectively superior to the other cause I miss something important?

  Read the article

• Subscribe/Publish Model in Web-based Application (c#) - Best Practices for Event Handlers

  - by KingOfHypocrites

  I was recently exposed to a desktop application that uses an publish/subscribe model to handle commands, events, etc. I can't seem to find any good examples of using this in a web application, so I wonder if I am off base in trying to use this for web based development (on the server side)? I'm using asp.net c#. My main question in regards to the design is: When using a publish/subscribe model, is it better to have generic commands/events that pass no parameters and then have the subscribers look at static context objects that contain the data relevant to the event? Or is it better to create custom arguments for every event that contain data related to the event? The whole concept of a global container seems so convenient but at the same time seems to break encapsulation. Any thoughts or best practices from anyone who has implemented this type of model in a web based application? Even suggestions on this model out of the scope of my question are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Where ORMs blur the lines between code and data, how do you decide what logic should be a stored procedure, and what should be coded?

  - by PhonicUK

  Take the following pseudocode: CreateInvoiceAndCalculate(ItemsAndQuantities, DispatchAddress, User); And say CreateInvoice does the following: Create a new entry in an Invoices table belonging to the specified User to be sent to the given DispatchAddress. Create a new entry in an InvoiceItems table for each of the items in ItemsAndQuantities, storing the Item, the Quantity, and the cost of the item as of now (by looking it up from an Items table) Calculate the total amount of the invoice (ex shipping and taxes) and store it in the new Invoice row. At a glace you wouldn't be able to tell if this was a method in my applications code, or a stored procedure in the database that is being exposed as a function by the ORM. And to some extent it doesn't really matter. Now technically none of this is business logic. You're not making any decisions - just performing a calculation and creating records. However some may argue that because you are performing a calculation that affects the business (the total amount to be invoiced) that this isn't something that should be done in a stored procedure and instead should be in code. So for this specific example - why would it be more appropriate to do one or the other? And where do you draw the line? Or does it even particular matter as long as it's sufficiently well documented?

  Read the article

• Use decorator and factory together to extend objects?

  - by TheClue

  I'm new to OOP and design pattern. I've a simple app that handles the generation of Tables, Columns (that belong to Table), Rows (that belong to Column) and Values (that belong to Rows). Each of these object can have a collection of Property, which is in turn defined as an enum. They are all interfaces: I used factories to get concrete instances of these products, depending on circumnstances. Now I'm facing the problem of extending these classes. Let's say I need another product called "SpecialTable" which in turn has some special properties or new methods like 'getSomethingSpecial' or an extended set of Property. The only way is to extend/specialize all my elements (ie. build a SpecialTableFactory, a SpecialTable interface and a SpecialTableImpl concrete)? What to do if, let's say, I plan to use standard methods like addRow(Column column, String name) that doesn't need to be specialized? I don't like the idea to inherit factories and interfaces, but since SpecialTable has more methods than Table i guess it cannot share the same factory. Am I wrong? Another question: if I need to define product properties at run time (a Table that is upgraded to SpecialTable at runtime), i guess i should use a decorator. Is it possible (and how) to combine both factory and decorator design? Is it better to use a State or Strategy pattern, instead?

  Read the article

• Is OOP becoming easier or harder?

  - by tunmise fasipe

  When the concepts of Object Oriented Programming were introduced to programmers years back it looks interesting and programming was cleaner. OOP was like this Stock stock = new Stock(); stock.addItem(item); stock.removeItem(item); That was easier to understand with self-descriptive name. But now OOP, with pattern like Data Transfer Objects (or Value Objects), Repository, Dependency Injection etc, has become more complex. To achieve the above you may have to create several classes (e.g. abstract, factory, DAO etc) and Implement several interfaces Note: I am not against best practices that makes Collaboration, Testing and Integration easier

  Read the article

• How to control messages to the same port from different emitters?

  - by Alex In Paris

  Scene: A company has many factories X, each emits a message to the same receive port in a Biztalk server Y; if all messages are processed without much delay, each will trigger an outgoing message to another system Z. Problem: Sometimes a factory loses its connection for a half-day or more and, when the connection is reestablished, thousands of messages get emitted. Now, the messages still get processed well by Y (Biztalk can easily handle the load) but system Z can't handle the flood and may lock up and severely delay the processing of all other messages from the other X. What is the solution? Creating multiple receive locations that permits us to pause one X or another would lose us information if the factory isn't smart enough to know whether the message was received or not. What is the basic pattern to apply in Biztalk for this problem? Would some throttling parameters help to limit the flow from any one X? Or are their techniques on the end part of Y which I should use instead ? I would prefer this last one since I can be confident that the message box will remember any failures, which could then be resumed.

  Read the article

• How can I design my classes for a calendar based on database events?

  - by Gianluca78

  I'm developing a web calendar in php (using Symfony2) inspired by iCal for a project of mine. At this moment, I have two classes: a class "Calendar" and a class "CalendarCell". Here you are the two classes properties and method declarations. class Calendar { private $month; private $monthName; private $year; private $calendarCellList = array(); private $translator; public function __construct($month, $year, $translator) {} public function getCalendarCells() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getMonthName() {} public function getNextMonth() {} public function getNextYear() {} public function getPreviousMonth() {} public function getPreviousYear() {} public function getYear() {} private function calculateDaysPreviousMonth() {} private function calculateNumericDayOfTheFirstDayOfTheWeek() {} private function isCurrentDay(\DateTime $dateTime) {} private function isDifferentMonth(\DateTime $dateTime) {} } class CalendarCell { private $day; private $month; private $dayNameAbbreviation; private $numericDayOfTheWeek; private $isCurrentDay; private $isDifferentMonth; private $translator; public function __construct(array $parameters) {} public function getDay() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getDayNameAbbreviation() {} public function isCurrentDay() {} public function isDifferentMonth() {} } Each calendar day can includes many events stored in a database. My question is: which is the best way to manage these events in my classes? I think to add a eventList property in CalendarCell and populate it with an array of CalendarEvent objects fetched by the database. This kind of solution doesn't allow other coders to reuse the classes without db (because I should inject at least a repository services also) just to create and visualize a calendar... so maybe it could be better to extend CalendarCell (for instance in CalendarCellEvent) and add the database features? I feel like I'm missing some crucial design pattern! Any suggestion will be very appreciated!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >