Search Results

Search found 53297 results on 2132 pages for 'web design hero'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 63/2132 | < Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >

  • ????????WebLogic Server - Web????|WebLogic Channel|??????

    - by ???02
    WebLogic Server????????????????????????????WebLogic Server?Web????????????????Web????????????????????????????????????WebLogic Server???JAX-RPC??????????JAX-WS??????????????????Web??????????WebLogic???????????JAX-WS?????Web?????????????????????????¦Web??????¦Web??????/????/??¦WebLogic Server 10.3.x?Web???????¦JAX-WS Stack ???/JAX-RPC Stack ???¦??????¦JAX-WS??/JAX-WS?JAX-PRC???¦JAX-WS???WebLogic Web ????????????????????????????????????[pdf]WebLogic Server - Web??????

    Read the article

  • .net design pattern question

    - by user359562
    Hi. I am trying to understand design pattern problems. I am trying to modify the code like this in winforms and trying to see if any design pattern suits my requirement. Please suggest which is the best design pattern in this scenario. This is very basic code containing 2 tab pages which might have different controls can be added dynamically and read out different files on click of particular tab. To elaborate more... I have written this code to learn and understand design pattern. This is just a scenario where user click on a particular tab which will show dynamic controls generated. public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); } private void tabControl1_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage1")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1(); } else if (tabControl1.SelectedTab.Name.Equals("tabPage2")) { GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2(); } } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab1() { Label label1 = new Label(); label1.Text = "Label1"; tabPage1.Controls.Add(label1); ReadCSVFile(); } private void GeneratedynamicControlsForTab2() { tabPage1.Controls.Clear(); Label label2 = new Label(); label2.Text = "Label2"; tabPage2.Controls.Add(label2); ReadTextFile(); } private void ReadCSVFile() { } private void ReadTextFile() { } }

    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

  • Are Java's public fields just a tragic historical design flaw at this point?

    - by Avi Flax
    It seems to be Java orthodoxy at this point that one should basically never use public fields for object state. (I don't necessarily agree, but that's not relevant to my question.) Given that, would it be right to say that from where we are today, it's clear that Java's public fields were a mistake/flaw of the language design? Or is there a rational argument that they're a useful and important part of the language, even today? Thanks! Update: I know about the more elegant approaches, such as in C#, Python, Groovy, etc. I'm not directly looking for those examples. I'm really just wondering if there's still someone deep in a bunker, muttering about how wonderful public fields really are, and how the masses are all just sheep, etc. Update 2: Clearly static final public fields are the standard way to create public constants. I was referring more to using public fields for object state (even immutable state). I'm thinking that it does seem like a design flaw that one should use public fields for constants, but not for state… a language's rules should be enforced naturally, by syntax, not by guidelines.

    Read the article

  • Interface (contract), Generics (universality), and extension methods (ease of use). Is it a right design?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm trying to design a simple conversion framework based on these requirements: All developers should follow a predefined set of rules to convert from the source entity to the target entity Some overall policies should be able to be applied in a central place, without interference with developers' code Both the creation of converters and usage of converter classes should be easy To solve these problems in C# language, A thought came to my mind. I'm writing it here, though it doesn't compile at all. But let's assume that C# compiles this code: I'll create a generic interface called IConverter public interface IConverter<TSource, TTarget> where TSource : class, new() where TTarget : class, new() { TTarget Convert(TSource source); List<TTarget> Convert(List<TSource> sourceItems); } Developers would implement this interface to create converters. For example: public class PhoneToCommunicationChannelConverter : IConverter<Phone, CommunicationChannle> { public CommunicationChannel Convert(Phone phone) { // conversion logic } public List<CommunicationChannel> Convert(List<Phone> phones) { // conversion logic } } And to make the usage of this conversion class easier, imagine that we add static and this keywords to methods to turn them into Extension Methods, and use them this way: List<Phone> phones = GetPhones(); List<CommunicationChannel> channels = phones.Convert(); However, this doesn't even compile. With those requirements, I can think of some other designs, but they each lack an aspect. Either the implementation would become more difficult or chaotic and out of control, or the usage would become truly hard. Is this design right at all? What alternatives I might have to achieve those requirements?

    Read the article

  • Abstracting functionality

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/22/abstracting-functionality.aspxWhat is more important than data? Functionality. Yes, I strongly believe we should switch to a functionality over data mindset in programming. Or actually switch back to it. Focus on functionality Functionality once was at the core of software development. Back when algorithms were the first thing you heard about in CS classes. Sure, data structures, too, were important - but always from the point of view of algorithms. (Niklaus Wirth gave one of his books the title “Algorithms + Data Structures” instead of “Data Structures + Algorithms” for a reason.) The reason for the focus on functionality? Firstly, because software was and is about doing stuff. Secondly because sufficient performance was hard to achieve, and only thirdly memory efficiency. But then hardware became more powerful. That gave rise to a new mindset: object orientation. And with it functionality was devalued. Data took over its place as the most important aspect. Now discussions revolved around structures motivated by data relationships. (John Beidler gave his book the title “Data Structures and Algorithms: An Object Oriented Approach” instead of the other way around for a reason.) Sure, this data could be embellished with functionality. But nevertheless functionality was second. When you look at (domain) object models what you mostly find is (domain) data object models. The common object oriented approach is: data aka structure over functionality. This is true even for the most modern modeling approaches like Domain Driven Design. Look at the literature and what you find is recommendations on how to get data structures right: aggregates, entities, value objects. I´m not saying this is what object orientation was invented for. But I´m saying that´s what I happen to see across many teams now some 25 years after object orientation became mainstream through C++, Delphi, and Java. But why should we switch back? Because software development cannot become truly agile with a data focus. The reason for that lies in what customers need first: functionality, behavior, operations. To be clear, that´s not why software is built. The purpose of software is to be more efficient than the alternative. Money mainly is spent to get a certain level of quality (e.g. performance, scalability, security etc.). But without functionality being present, there is nothing to work on the quality of. What customers want is functionality of a certain quality. ASAP. And tomorrow new functionality needs to be added, existing functionality needs to be changed, and quality needs to be increased. No customer ever wanted data or structures. Of course data should be processed. Data is there, data gets generated, transformed, stored. But how the data is structured for this to happen efficiently is of no concern to the customer. Ask a customer (or user) whether she likes the data structured this way or that way. She´ll say, “I don´t care.” But ask a customer (or user) whether he likes the functionality and its quality this way or that way. He´ll say, “I like it” (or “I don´t like it”). Build software incrementally From this very natural focus of customers and users on functionality and its quality follows we should develop software incrementally. That´s what Agility is about. Deliver small increments quickly and often to get frequent feedback. That way less waste is produced, and learning can take place much easier (on the side of the customer as well as on the side of developers). An increment is some added functionality or quality of functionality.[1] So as it turns out, Agility is about functionality over whatever. But software developers’ thinking is still stuck in the object oriented mindset of whatever over functionality. Bummer. I guess that (at least partly) explains why Agility always hits a glass ceiling in projects. It´s a clash of mindsets, of cultures. Driving software development by demanding small increases in functionality runs against thinking about software as growing (data) structures sprinkled with functionality. (Excuse me, if this sounds a bit broad-brush. But you get my point.) The need for abstraction In the end there need to be data structures. Of course. Small and large ones. The phrase functionality over data does not deny that. It´s not functionality instead of data or something. It´s just over, i.e. functionality should be thought of first. It´s a tad more important. It´s what the customer wants. That´s why we need a way to design functionality. Small and large. We need to be able to think about functionality before implementing it. We need to be able to reason about it among team members. We need to be able to communicate our mental models of functionality not just by speaking about them, but also on paper. Otherwise reasoning about it does not scale. We learned thinking about functionality in the small using flow charts, Nassi-Shneiderman diagrams, pseudo code, or UML sequence diagrams. That´s nice and well. But it does not scale. You can use these tools to describe manageable algorithms. But it does not work for the functionality triggered by pressing the “1-Click Order” on an amazon product page for example. There are several reasons for that, I´d say. Firstly, the level of abstraction over code is negligible. It´s essentially non-existent. Drawing a flow chart or writing pseudo code or writing actual code is very, very much alike. All these tools are about control flow like code is.[2] In addition all tools are computationally complete. They are about logic which is expressions and especially control statements. Whatever you code in Java you can fully (!) describe using a flow chart. And then there is no data. They are about control flow and leave out the data altogether. Thus data mostly is assumed to be global. That´s shooting yourself in the foot, as I hope you agree. Even if it´s functionality over data that does not mean “don´t think about data”. Right to the contrary! Functionality only makes sense with regard to data. So data needs to be in the picture right from the start - but it must not dominate the thinking. The above tools fail on this. Bottom line: So far we´re unable to reason in a scalable and abstract manner about functionality. That´s why programmers are so driven to start coding once they are presented with a problem. Programming languages are the only tool they´ve learned to use to reason about functional solutions. Or, well, there might be exceptions. Mathematical notation and SQL may have come to your mind already. Indeed they are tools on a higher level of abstraction than flow charts etc. That´s because they are declarative and not computationally complete. They leave out details - in order to deliver higher efficiency in devising overall solutions. We can easily reason about functionality using mathematics and SQL. That´s great. Except for that they are domain specific languages. They are not general purpose. (And they don´t scale either, I´d say.) Bummer. So to be more precise we need a scalable general purpose tool on a higher than code level of abstraction not neglecting data. Enter: Flow Design. Abstracting functionality using data flows I believe the solution to the problem of abstracting functionality lies in switching from control flow to data flow. Data flow very naturally is not about logic details anymore. There are no expressions and no control statements anymore. There are not even statements anymore. Data flow is declarative by nature. With data flow we get rid of all the limiting traits of former approaches to modeling functionality. In addition, nomen est omen, data flows include data in the functionality picture. With data flows, data is visibly flowing from processing step to processing step. Control is not flowing. Control is wherever it´s needed to process data coming in. That´s a crucial difference and needs some rewiring in your head to be fully appreciated.[2] Since data flows are declarative they are not the right tool to describe algorithms, though, I´d say. With them you don´t design functionality on a low level. During design data flow processing steps are black boxes. They get fleshed out during coding. Data flow design thus is more coarse grained than flow chart design. It starts on a higher level of abstraction - but then is not limited. By nesting data flows indefinitely you can design functionality of any size, without losing sight of your data. Data flows scale very well during design. They can be used on any level of granularity. And they can easily be depicted. Communicating designs using data flows is easy and scales well, too. The result of functional design using data flows is not algorithms (too low level), but processes. Think of data flows as descriptions of industrial production lines. Data as material runs through a number of processing steps to be analyzed, enhances, transformed. On the top level of a data flow design might be just one processing step, e.g. “execute 1-click order”. But below that are arbitrary levels of flows with smaller and smaller steps. That´s not layering as in “layered architecture”, though. Rather it´s a stratified design à la Abelson/Sussman. Refining data flows is not your grandpa´s functional decomposition. That was rooted in control flows. Refining data flows does not suffer from the limits of functional decomposition against which object orientation was supposed to be an antidote. Summary I´ve been working exclusively with data flows for functional design for the past 4 years. It has changed my life as a programmer. What once was difficult is now easy. And, no, I´m not using Clojure or F#. And I´m not a async/parallel execution buff. Designing the functionality of increments using data flows works great with teams. It produces design documentation which can easily be translated into code - in which then the smallest data flow processing steps have to be fleshed out - which is comparatively easy. Using a systematic translation approach code can mirror the data flow design. That way later on the design can easily be reproduced from the code if need be. And finally, data flow designs play well with object orientation. They are a great starting point for class design. But that´s a story for another day. To me data flow design simply is one of the missing links of systematic lightweight software design. There are also other artifacts software development can produce to get feedback, e.g. process descriptions, test cases. But customers can be delighted more easily with code based increments in functionality. ? No, I´m not talking about the endless possibilities this opens for parallel processing. Data flows are useful independently of multi-core processors and Actor-based designs. That´s my whole point here. Data flows are good for reasoning and evolvability. So forget about any special frameworks you might need to reap benefits from data flows. None are necessary. Translating data flow designs even into plain of Java is possible. ?

    Read the article

  • Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Ajax, Version=3.0.31106.0

    - by Jonesy
    HI folks, I have a .net application (vb.net) and I'm using the ajax control toolkit. It works fine on my production machine but when I upload it to the host (fasthosts) i get this error: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Ajax, Version=3.0.31106.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' or one of its dependencies. The module was expected to contain an assembly manifest. Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code. Exception Details: System.BadImageFormatException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Ajax, Version=3.0.31106.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' or one of its dependencies. The module was expected to contain an assembly manifest. Source Error: An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below. Assembly Load Trace: The following information can be helpful to determine why the assembly 'System.Web.Ajax, Version=3.0.31106.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' could not be loaded. WRN: Assembly binding logging is turned OFF. To enable assembly bind failure logging, set the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog] (DWORD) to 1. Note: There is some performance penalty associated with assembly bind failure logging. To turn this feature off, remove the registry value [HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion!EnableLog]. Stack Trace: [BadImageFormatException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Web.Ajax, Version=3.0.31106.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=28f01b0e84b6d53e' or one of its dependencies. The module was expected to contain an assembly manifest.] AjaxControlToolkit.ToolkitScriptManager.ApplyAssembly(ScriptReference script, Boolean isComposite) +0 AjaxControlToolkit.ToolkitScriptManager.OnResolveScriptReference(ScriptReferenceEventArgs e) +167 System.Web.UI.ScriptManager.RegisterScripts() +191 System.Web.UI.ScriptManager.OnPagePreRenderComplete(Object sender, EventArgs e) +113 System.Web.UI.Page.OnPreRenderComplete(EventArgs e) +8698462 System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain(Boolean includeStagesBeforeAsyncPoint, Boolean includeStagesAfterAsyncPoint) +1029 Here is my web.conf file. Its very simple: <system.web> <customErrors mode="Off"/> <compilation debug="true"> <assemblies> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Web.Extensions.Design, Version=3.5.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=31BF3856AD364E35"/> <add assembly="System.Design, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B03F5F7F11D50A3A"/> <add assembly="System.Windows.Forms, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=B77A5C561934E089"/></assemblies></compilation></system.web> Does anyone know whats up? -- Billy

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Design for a machine learning artificial intelligence framework (community wiki)

    - by Lirik
    This is a community wiki which aims to provide a good design for a machine learning/artificial intelligence framework (ML/AI framework). Please contribute to the design of a language-agnostic framework which would allow multiple ML/AI algorithms to be plugged into a single framework which: runs the algorithms with a user-specified data set. facilitates learning, qualification, and classification. allows users to easily plug in new algorithms. can aggregate or create an ensemble of the existing algorithms. can save/load the progress of the algorithm (i.e. save the network and weights of a neural network, save the tree of a decision tree, etc.). What is a good design for this sort of ML/AI framework?

    Read the article

  • Import web.go error after using goinstall

    - by Metropolis
    With halfdans advice, I was successfully able to use goinstall github.com/hoisie/web.go without any errors after installing git first. However, now when I try to compile the sample code given, go is not finding the web package. I get the error, main.go:4: can't find import: web On this code package main import ( "web" ) func hello(val string) string { return "hello " + val } func main() { web.Get("/(.*)", hello) web.Run("0.0.0.0:9999") } Is there something special I need to do in order for it to recognize the package? I found the package source at $GOROOT/src/pkg/github.com/hoisie/web.go/web. I tried github.com/hoisie/web.go/web as the import and it still did not like that.

    Read the article

  • Winforms Which Design Pattern / Agile Methodology to choose

    - by ZedBee
    I have developed desktop (winforms) applications without following any proper design pattern or agile methodologies. Now I have been given the task to re-write an existing ERP application in C# (Winforms). I have been reading about Domain Driven Design, scrum, extreme programming, layered architecture etc. Its quite confusing and really hard (because of time limitations) to go and try each and every method and then deciding which way to go. Its very hard for me to understand the bigger picture and see which pattern and agile methodology to follow. To be more specific about what I want to know is that: Is it possible to follow Domain Driven Design and still be agile. Should I choose Extreme programming or scrum in this specific scenario Where does MVP and MVVM fits, which one would be a better option for me

    Read the article

  • What design patterns are used in diagramming tools?

    - by TheMachineCharmer
    Diagram.net is good diagramming tool. I need to understand what design patterns are used by this tool so that I can understand how it works. What design patterns are used in this tool? What design patterns are generally used for diagramming tools? I would also like to know how can I use this to develop very simple diagramming tool (Only rectangular nodes and straight links). NOTE/Caution: I am doing this for FUN so please don't direct me to existing tools(I might down vote.. just kiddin ;).

    Read the article

  • android call log like design

    - by Alxandr
    I'm trying to create a design for a list that looks like (and mostly behaves like) the call log, like shown here: I don't need all the design, but what I'm trying to achieve is the two-columned design with the splitter in-between, and the behavior that if I click on the main item (the left part) one thing happens (in this case, you open some details about the call), and if you press the outer right part something else happens (you call the contact). I'm pretty new to android, but I've managed to do most of the designs I wanted so far, so I don't need the entire layout for this one, only the part that does the splitting and the splitter. And if possible it would be nice to know how to map the clicks appropriately, though I think I might be able to find that out by my self.

    Read the article

  • View centric design with Django

    - by wishi_
    Hi! I'm relatively new to Django and I'm designing a website that primarily needs usability experience, speaking of optimized CSS, HTML5 and UI stuff. It's very easy to use Django for data/Model centric design. Just designing a couple of Python classes and ./manage.py syncdb - there's your Model. But I'm dealing with a significant amount of View centric challenges. (Different user classes, different tasks, different design challenges.) The official Django tutorial cursorily goes through using a "Template". Is there any Design centric guide for Django, or a set of Templates that are ready and useable? I don't want to start from scratch using JS, HTML5, Ajax and everything. From the Model layer perspective Django is very rapid and delivering a working base system. I wonder whether there's something like that for the Views.

    Read the article

  • What exception is thrown if a web service i'm using Times Out?

    - by BT
    I'm calling a .NET web service within my existing .NET webservice, i would like to know what exception is thrown from the web method if timeout happens, i have set the web service timeout to some lower value then the default 90 sec. and want to add business logic if time out happens. Is this the exception i should be looking at? System.Net.WebException

    Read the article

  • Alternative design for a synonyms table?

    - by Majid
    I am working on an app which is to suggest alternative words/phrases for input text. I have doubts about what might be a good design for the synonyms table. Design considerations: number of synonyms is variable, i.e. football has one synonym (soccer), but in particular has two (particularly, specifically) if football is a synonym to soccer, the relation exists in the opposite direction as well. our goal is to query a word and find its synonyms we want to keep the table small and make adding new words easy What comes to my mind is a two column design with col a = word and col b = delimited list of synonyms Is there any better alternative? What about using two tables, one for words and the other for relations?

    Read the article

  • Silverlight/Web Service Serializing Interface for use Client Side

    - by Steve Brouillard
    I have a Silverlight solution that references a third-party web service. This web service generates XML, which is then processed into objects for use in Silverlight binding. At one point we the processing of XML to objects was done client-side, but we ran into performance issues and decided to move this processing to the proxies in the hosting web project to improve performance (which it did). This is obviously a gross over-simplification, but should work. My basic project structure looks like this. Solution Solution.Web - Holds the web page that hosts Silverlight as well as proxies that access web services and processes as required and obviously the references to those web services). Solution.Infrastructure - Holds references to the proxy web services in the .Web project, all genned code from serialized objects from those proxies and code around those objects that need to be client-side. Solution.Book - The particular project that uses the objects in question after processed down into Infrastructure. I've defined the following Interface and Class in the Web project. They represent the type of objects that the XML from the original third-party gets transformed into and since this is the only project in the Silverlight app that is actually server-side, that was the place to define and use them. //Doesn't get much simpler than this. public interface INavigable { string Description { get; set; } } //Very simple class too public class IndexEntry : INavigable { public List<IndexCM> CMItems { get; set; } public string CPTCode { get; set; } public string DefinitionOfAbbreviations { get; set; } public string Description { get; set; } public string EtiologyCode { get; set; } public bool HighScore { get; set; } public IndexToTabularCommandArguments IndexToTabularCommandArgument { get; set; } public bool IsExpanded { get; set; } public string ManifestationCode { get; set; } public string MorphologyCode { get; set; } public List<TextItem> NonEssentialModifiersAndQualifyingText { get; set; } public string OtherItalics { get; set; } public IndexEntry Parent { get; set; } public int Score { get; set; } public string SeeAlsoReference { get; set; } public string SeeReference { get; set; } public List<IndexEntry> SubEntries { get; set; } public int Words { get; set; } } Again; both of these items are defined in the Web project. Notice that IndexEntry implments INavigable. When the code for IndexEntry is auto-genned in the Infrastructure project, the definition of the class does not include the implmentation of INavigable. After discovering this, I thought "no problem, I'll create another partial class file reiterating the implmentation". Unfortunately (I'm guessing because it isn't being serialized), that interface isn't recognized in the Infrastructure project, so I can't simply do that. Here's where it gets really weird. The BOOK project CAN see the INavigable interface. In fact I use it in Book, though Book has no reference to the Web Service in the Web project where the thing is define, though Infrastructure does. Just as a test, I linked to the INavigable source file from indside the Infrastructure project. That allowed me to reference it in that project and compile, but causes havoc in the Book project, because now there's a conflick between the one define in Infrastructure and the one defined in the Web project's web service. This is behavior I would expect. So, to try and sum up a bit. Web project has a web service that process data from a third-party service and has a class and interface defined in it. The class implements the interface. The Infrastructure project references the web service in the Web Project and the Book project references the Infrastructure project. The implmentation of the interface in the class does NOT serialize down, so the auto-genned code in INfrastructure does not show this relationship, breaking code further down-stream. The Book project, whihc is further down-stream CAN see the interface as defined in the Web Project, even though its only reference is through the Infrastructure project; whihc CAN'T see it. Am I simple missing something easy here? Can I apply an attribute to either the Interface definition or to the its implmentation in the class to ensure its visibility downstream? Anything else I can do here? I know this is a bit convoluted and anyone still with me here, thanks for your patience and any advice you might have. Cheers, Steve

    Read the article

  • What are "web services"?

    - by Kevin
    I'm reading a book about programming ASP.NET in C#. The book makes the following comment: Previous editions of this book tackled web services, a feature that allows you to create code routines that can be called by other applications over the Internet.Web services are more interesting when considering rich client development (because they allow you to give web features to ordinary desktop applications),and they’re in the process of being replaced by a new technology known as WCF (Windows Communication Foundation). For those reasons, web services aren’t covered in this book.However,if you want to branch out and explore the web service world,you can download the web service chapters from the previous edition of this book from the book’s download page.The information in these chapters still applies to ASP.NET 3.5,because the web service feature hasn’t changed. Can someone offer, in "layman's terms" what exactly a web service is and if, indeed, they are being replaced, at least in .Net, with WCF? What would be a practical example of a web service? Are they stand alone programs that run on a web server and are invoked by a client or clients?

    Read the article

  • Proper design a Model-Controller in Cocoa?

    - by legege
    Hi, I'm trying to design a simple Cocoa application and I would like to have a clear and easy to understand software architecture. Of course, I'm using a basic MVC design and my question concerns the Model layer. For my application, the Model represents data fetched on the Internet with a XML-RPC API. I'm planning to use Core Data to represent a locally fetched version. How should the data be loaded initially? I'm reading the Cocoa Design Pattern book, and they talk about a Model-Controller that is centric to the Model. How would that be done? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Good workflow for website design

    - by Olav
    I would like some idea about a good workflow for Website Design, with a high degree of "offshoring" (Elance, Odesk etc.). I would to do as much as possible "pre production", with client input, ideas etc. stored in IA diagrams, wireframe mockups etc. in something like a Wiki. Also a like the idea about having different people come up with different design proposals. Wouldlike to have some ideas of costs of different phases and tasks ($, %, hours). With Design I mean roughly the aspects of a site that can be done with client-side tools, especially XHTML and CSS. What other tools should I use than IA diagrams.

    Read the article

  • Is it me or is developing web based data entry GUIs a big pain?

    - by GregH
    Maybe it's me or maybe it isn't. I don't have a huge amount of experience of developing web based data entry software but do have some. I used to do it quite a bit years ago. Used to use Oracle Forms, Visual Studio, various 4th generation languages, and performing the user interface layout used to be a snap. Now doing the user interface for developing web applications seems to be a huge pain in the rear. Just trying to get text entry fields and widgets to go where they are supposed to go on the screen is a total pain. You have to know Javascript, CSS, JQuery, HTML, etc. There must be an easier way to develop data entry forms that produce the needed underlying code for a web page. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. There must be some WYSIWYG GUI development tools for the web for developing data entry forms out there. Anybody know of any?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for mouse interaction

    - by mike
    I need some opinions on what is the "ideal" design pattern for a general mouse interaction. Here the simplified problem. I have a small 3d program (QT and openGL) and I use the mouse for interaction. Every interaction is normally not only a single function call, it is mostly performed by up to 3 function calls (initiate, perform, finalize). For example, camera rotation: here the initial function call will deliver the current first mouse position, whereas the performing function calls will update the camera etc. However, for only a couple of interactions, hardcoding these (inside MousePressEvent, MouseReleaseEvent MouseMoveEvent or MouseWheelEvent etc) is not a big deal, but if I think about a more advanced program (e.g 20 or more interactions) then a proper design is needed. Therefore, how would you design such a interactions inside QT. I hope I made my problem clear enough, otherwise don't bother complain :-) Thanks

    Read the article

  • best approah (security) to do some admin work through web page in Linux?

    - by Data-Base
    Hello, I want to build a web based admin tools that allow the system admin to run pre-configured commands and scripts through a web page (simple and limited webmin), what is the best approach? I already started with Ubuntu installing LAMP and give the user www-data root's privileges !!! as I learned (please check the link) this is a really bad move !!!, so how to build such web-based system without the security risk? cheers

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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