Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

Page 64/170 | < Previous Page | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >

  • What design pattern shall I use in this question?

    - by iyad al aqel
    To be frank, this is a homework question, so I'll tell you my opinion. Can you let me know my mistakes rather than giving me the solution? This is the question : Assume a restaurant that only offers the following two types of meals: (a) a full meal and (b)an economic meal. The full meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Appetizer 2. Drink 3. Main dish 4. Dessert Meanwhile the economic meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Drink 2. Main dish Identify the most appropriate design pattern that can be used to allow a customer to only order using one of the two types of meals provided and that the meal components must be served in the given order. I'm confused between the Factory and the Iterator and using them both together. Using the factory Pattern we can create the two meals full and economic and provide the user with with a base object class that will decide upon. But how can we enforce the ordering of the elements, I thought of using the iterator along that will iterate through the the composite of the two created factories sort of speak. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Facade controller, is it efficient?

    - by Berlioz
    Using a facade controller pattern in .net. It seems as if though it is not efficient BECAUSE, for every event that happens in a domain object(Sales, Register, Schedule, Car) it has to be subscribed to by the controller(use case controller) and then the controller in turn has to duplicate that same event to make it available for the presentation, so that the presentation can show it to the user. Does this make sense? Please comment!

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • how to get access to private members of nested class?

    - by macias
    Background: I have enclosed (parent) class E with nested class N with several instances of N in E. In the enclosed (parent) class I am doing some calculations and I am setting the values for each instance of nested class. Something like this: n1.field1 = ...; n1.field2 = ...; n1.field3 = ...; n2.field1 = ...; ... It is one big eval method (in parent class). My intention is -- since all calculations are in parent class (they cannot be done per nested instance because it would make code more complicated) -- make the setters only available to parent class and getters public. And now there is a problem: when I make the setters private, parent class cannot acces them when I make them public, everybody can change the values and C# does not have friend concept I cannot pass values in constructor because lazy evaluation mechanism is used (so the instances have to be created when referencing them -- I create all objects and the calculation is triggered on demand) I am stuck -- how to do this (limit access up to parent class, no more, no less)? I suspect I'll get answer-question first -- "but why you don't split the evaluation per each field" -- so I answer this by example: how do you calculate min and max value of a collection? In a fast way? The answer is -- in one pass. This is why I have one eval function which does calculations and sets all fields at once.

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • What is there so useful in the Decorator Pattern? My example doesn't work

    - by Green
    The book says: The decorator pattern can be used to extend (decorate) the functionality of a certain object I have a rabbit animal. And I want my rabbit to have, for example, reptile skin. Just want to decorate a common rabbit with reptile skin. I have the code. First I have abstract class Animal with everythig that is common to any animal: abstract class Animal { abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); abstract public function getSkinType(); /* and more methods which for sure will be implemented in any concrete animal */ } I create class for my rabbit: class Rabbit extends Animal { private $rest; private $stomach; private $skinType = "hair"; public function setSleep($hours) { $this->rest = $hours; } public function setFood($food) { $this->stomach = $food; } public function getSkinType() { return $this->$skinType; } } Up to now everything is OK. Then I create abstract AnimalDecorator class which extends Animal: abstract class AnimalDecorator extends Animal { protected $animal; public function __construct(Animal $animal) { $this->animal = $animal; } } And here the problem comes. Pay attention that AnimalDecorator also gets all the abstract methods from the Animal class (in this example just two but in real can have many more). Then I create concrete ReptileSkinDecorator class which extends AnimalDecorator. It also has those the same two abstract methods from Animal: class ReptileSkinDecorator extends AnimalDecorator { public function getSkinColor() { $skin = $this->animal->getSkinType(); $skin = "reptile"; return $skin; } } And finaly I want to decorate my rabbit with reptile skin: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); But I can't do this because I have two abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. They are: abstract public function setSleep($hours); abstract public function setEat($food); So, instead of just re-decorating only skin I also have to re-decorate setSleep() and setEat(); methods. But I don't need to. In all the book examples there is always ONLY ONE abstract method in Animal class. And of course it works then. But here I just made very simple real life example and tried to use the Decorator pattern and it doesn't work without implementing those abstract methods in ReptileSkinDecorator class. It means that if I want to use my example I have to create a brand new rabbit and implement for it its own setSleep() and setEat() methods. OK, let it be. But then this brand new rabbit has the instance of commont Rabbit I passed to ReptileSkinDecorator: $reptileSkinRabbit = ReptileSkinDecorator(new Rabbit()); I have one common rabbit instance with its own methods in the reptileSkinRabbit instance which in its turn has its own reptileSkinRabbit methods. I have rabbit in rabbit. But I think I don't have to have such possibility. I don't understand the Decarator pattern right way. Kindly ask you to point on any mistakes in my example, in my understanding of this pattern. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Naming remote proxy classes

    - by Tobbe
    What are some good names for the client and server side classes that communicate over the network when implementing a remote proxy? The classes are often called stub and skelleton but I don't find those names very "intention revealing". Are there any other (better) alternatives?

    Read the article

  • "Circuit breaker" for net.msmq?

    - by Alex
    Hi, The Circuit Breaker pattern, from the book Release It!, protects a service from requests while it is failing (or recovering). The net.msmq binding used with transactions give us nice retry and poison message capabilities. But I am missing the implementation of such a "Circuit breaker" pattern. A service is put under even heavier load by retries while it is already in a failure condition (like DB connectivity issues causing loads of blocked threads etc.). Anyone knows about a behavior extension or similar that explicitly closes the service host when defined failure thresholds have been exceeded? Cheers, Alex

    Read the article

  • Conditional column values in NSTableView?

    - by velocityb0y
    I have an NSTableView that binds via an NSArrayController to an NSMutableArray. What's in the array are derived classes; the first few columns of the table are bound to properties that exist on the base class. That all works fine. Where I'm running into problem is a column that should only be populated if the row maps to one specific subclass. The property that column is meant to display only exists in that subclass, since it makes no sense in terms of the base class. The user will know, from the first two columns, why the third column's cell is populated/editable or not. The binding on the third column's value is on arrangedObjects, with a model path of something like "foo.name" where foo is the property on the subclass. However, this doesn't work, as the other subclasses in the hierarchy are not key-value compliant for foo. It seems like my only choice is to have foo be a property on the base class so everybody responds to it, but this clutters up the interfaces of the model objects. Has anyone come up with a clean design for this situation? It can't be uncommon (I'm a relative newcomer to Cocoa and I'm just learning the ins and outs of bindings.)

    Read the article

  • design using a readonly class in c#

    - by edosoft
    Hi Small design question here. I'm trying to develop a calculation app in C#. I have a class, let's call it InputRecord, which holds 100s of fields (multi dimensional arrays) This InputRecordclass will be used in a number of CalculationEngines. Each CalculcationEngine can make changes to a number of fields in the InputRecord. These changes are steps needed for it's calculation. Now I don't want the local changes made to the InputRecord to be used in other CalculcationEngine's classes. The first solution that comes to mind is using a struct: these are value types. However I'd like to use inheritance: each CalculationEngine needs a few fields only relevant to that engine: it's has it's own InputRecord, based on BaseInputRecord. Can anyone point me to a design that will help me accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • dynamical binding or switch/case?

    - by kingkai
    A scene like this: I've different of objects do the similar operation as respective func() implements. There're 2 kinds of solution for func_manager() to call func() according to different objects Solution 1: Use virtual function character specified in c++. func_manager works differently accroding to different object point pass in. class Object{ virtual void func() = 0; } class Object_A : public Object{ void func() {}; } class Object_B : public Object{ void func() {}; } void func_manager(Object* a) { a->func(); } Solution 2: Use plain switch/case. func_manager works differently accroding to different type pass in typedef _type_t { TYPE_A, TYPE_B }type_t; void func_by_a() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_by_b() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_manager(type_t type) { switch(type){ case TYPE_A: func_by_a(); break; case TYPE_B: func_by_b(); default: break; } } My Question are 2: 1. at the view point of DESIGN PATTERN, which one is better? 2. at the view point of RUNTIME EFFCIENCE, which one is better? Especailly as the kinds of Object increases, may be up to 10-15 total, which one's overhead oversteps the other? I don't know how switch/case implements innerly, just a bunch of if/else? Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • How to better design it ???

    - by Deepak
    public interface IBasePresenter { } public interface IJobViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public interface IActivityViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public class BaseView { public IBasePresenter Presenter { get; set; } } public class JobView : BaseView { public IJobViewPresenter JobViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IJobViewPresenter;} } } public class ActivityView : BaseView { public IActivityViewPresenter ActivityViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IActivityViewPresenter;} } } Lets assume that I need a IBasePresenter property on BaseView. Now this property is inherited by JobView and ActivityView but if I need reference to IJobViewPresenter object in these derived classes then I need to type cast IBasePresenter property to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityPresenter (which I want to avoid) or create JobViewPresenter and ActivityViewPresenter on derived classes (as shown above). I want to avoid type casting in derived classes and still have reference to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityViewPresenter and still have IBasePresenter in BaseView. Is there a way I can achieve it ?

    Read the article

  • Detecting an online poker cheat

    - by Tom Gullen
    It recently emerged on a large poker site that some players were possibly able to see all opponents cards as they played through exploiting a security vulnerability that was discovered. A naïve cheater would win at an incredibly fast rate, and these cheats are caught very quickly usually, and if not caught quickly they are easy to detect through a quick scan through their hand histories. The more difficult problem occurs when the cheater exhibits intelligence, bluffing in spots they are bound to be called in, calling river bets with the worst hands, the basic premise is that they lose pots on purpose to disguise their ability to see other players cards, and they win at a reasonably realistic rate. Given: A data set of millions of verified and complete information hand histories Theoretical unlimited computer power Assume the game No Limit Hold'em, although suggestions on Omaha or limit poker may be beneficial How could we reasonably accurately classify these cheaters? The original 2+2 thread appeals for ideas, and I thought that the SO community might have some useful suggestions. It's an interesting problem also because it is current, and has real application in bettering the world if someone finds a creative solution, as there is a good chance genuine players will have funds refunded to them when identified cheaters are discovered.

    Read the article

  • Passing data between objects in Chain of Responsibility pattern

    - by AbrahamJP
    While implementing the Chain of Responsibility pattern, i came across a dilemma om how to pass data between objects in the chain. The datatypes passed between object in the chain can differ for each object. As a temporary fix I had created a Static class containing a stack where each object in the chain can push the results to the stack while the next object in the chain could pop the results from the stack. Here is a sample code on what I had implemented. public interface IHandler { void Process(); } public static class StackManager { public static Stack DataStack = new Stack(); } //This class doesn't require any input to operate public class OpsA : IHandler { public IHandler Successor {get; set; } public void Process() { //Do some processing, store the result into Stack var ProcessedData = DoSomeOperation(); StackManager.DataStack.Push(ProcessedData); if(Successor != null) Successor(); } } //This class require input data to operate upon public class OpsB : IHandler { public IHandler Successor {get; set; } public void Process() { //Retrieve the results from the previous Operation var InputData = StackManager.DataStack.Pop(); //Do some processing, store the result into Stack var NewProcessedData = DoMoreProcessing(InputData); StackManager.DataStack.Push(NewProcessedData); if(Successor != null) Successor(); } } public class ChainOfResponsibilityPattern { public void Process() { IHandler ProcessA = new OpsA(); IHandler ProcessB = new OpsB(); ProcessA.Successor = ProcessB; ProcessA.Process(); } } Please help me to find a better approach to pass data between handlers objects in the chain.

    Read the article

  • One executable with cmd-line params or just many satellite executables?

    - by Nikos Baxevanis
    I design an application back-end. For now, it is a .NET process (a Console Application) which hosts various communication frameworks such as Agatha and NServiceBus. I need to periodically update my datastore with values (coming from the application while it's running). I found three possible ways: Accept command line arguments, so I can call my console app with -update. On start up a background thread will periodically invoke the update method. Create an updater.exe app which will do the updates, but I will have code duplication since in some way it will need to query the data from the source in order to save it to the datastore. Which one is better?

    Read the article

  • Objective-c design advice for use of different data sources, swapping between test and live

    - by user200341
    I'm in the process of designing an application that is part of a larger piece of work, depending on other people to build an API that the app can make use of to retrieve data. While I was thinking about how to setup this project and design the architecture around it, something occurred to me, and I'm sure many people have been in similar situations. Since my work is depending on other people to complete their tasks, and a test server, this slows work down at my end. So the question is: What's the best practice for creating test repositories and classes, implementing them, and not having to depend on altering several places in the code to swap between the test classes and the actual repositories / proper api calls. Contemplate the following scenario: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [[GetDataFromApiCommand alloc]init]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; Once the data is available via the API, "GetDataFromApiCommand" could use the actual API, but until then a set of mock data could be returned upon the call of [getDataCommand getData] There might be multiple instances of this, in various places in the code, so replacing all of them wherever they are, is a slow and painful process which inevitably leads to one or two being overlooked. In strongly typed languages we could use dependency injection and just alter one place. In objective-c a factory pattern could be implemented, but is that the best route to go for this? GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [GetDataFromApiCommandFactory buildGetDataFromApiCommand]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; What is the best practices to achieve this result? Since this would be most useful, even if you have the actual API available, to run tests, or work off-line, the ApiCommands would not necessarily have to be replaced permanently, but the option to select "Do I want to use TestApiCommand or ApiCommand". It is more interesting to have the option to switch between: All commands are test and All command use the live API, rather than selecting them one by one, however that would also be useful to do for testing one or two actual API commands, mixing them with test data. EDIT The way I have chosen to go with this is to use the factory pattern. I set up the factory as follows: @implementation ApiCommandFactory + (ApiCommand *)newApiCommand { // return [[ApiCommand alloc]init]; return [[ApiCommandMock alloc]init]; } @end And anywhere I want to use the ApiCommand class: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [ApiCommandFactory newApiCommand]; When the actual API call is required, the comments can be removed and the mock can be commented out. Using new in the message name implies that who ever uses the factory to get an object, is responsible for releasing it (since we want to avoid autorelease on the iPhone). If additional parameters are required, the factory needs to take these into consideration i.e: [ApiCommandFactory newSecondApiCommand:@"param1"]; This will work quite well with repositories as well.

    Read the article

  • In a PHP project, how do you organize and access your helper objects?

    - by Pekka
    How do you organize and manage your helper objects like the database engine, user notification, error handling and so on in a PHP based, object oriented project? Say I have a large PHP CMS. The CMS is organized in various classes. A few examples: the database object user management an API to create/modify/delete items a messaging object to display messages to the end user a context handler that takes you to the right page a navigation bar class that shows buttons a logging object possibly, custom error handling etc. I am dealing with the eternal question, how to best make these objects accessible to each part of the system that needs it. my first apporach, many years ago was to have a $application global that contained initialized instances of these classes. global $application; $application->messageHandler->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); I then changed over to the Singleton pattern and a factory function: $mh =&factory("messageHandler"); $mh->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); but I'm not happy with that either. Unit tests and encapsulation become more and more important to me, and in my understanding the logic behind globals/singletons destroys the basic idea of OOP. Then there is of course the possibility of giving each object a number of pointers to the helper objects it needs, probably the very cleanest, resource-saving and testing-friendly way but I have doubts about the maintainability of this in the long run. Most PHP frameworks I have looked into use either the singleton pattern, or functions that access the initialized objects. Both fine approaches, but as I said I'm happy with neither. I would like to broaden my horizon on what is possible here and what others have done. I am looking for examples, additional ideas and pointers towards resources that discuss this from a long-term, real-world perspective. Also, I'm interested to hear about specialized, niche or plain weird approaches to the issue. Bounty I am following the popular vote in awarding the bounty, the answer which is probably also going to give me the most. Thank you for all your answers!

    Read the article

  • Application Design: Single vs. Multiple Hits to the DB

    - by shyneman
    I'm building a service that performs a set of configured activities based on the type of request that it receives. Each activity involves going to the database and retrieving/updating some kind of information. The logic for each activity can be generalized and re-used across different request types. The activities may need to participate in a transaction for the duration of the servicing the request. One option, I'm considering is having each activity maintain its own access to DAL/database. This fully encapsulates the activity into a stand-alone re-usable piece, but hitting the database multiple times for one request doesn't seem like a viable option. I don't really know how to easily implement the concept of a transaction across the multiple activities here either. The second option is to encapsulate ALL the activities into one big activity and hit the database once. But this does not allow re-use and configuration of these activities for different requests. Does anyone have any suggestions and input about what should be the best way to approach my problem? Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • MVC (model-view-controller) - can it be explained in simple terms?

    - by DVK
    I need to explain to a not-very-technical manager the MVC (model-view-controller) concept and ran into trouble. The problem is that the explanation needs to be on a "your grandma will get it" level - e.g. even the fairly straightforward explanation offered on MVC Wiki page didn't work, at least with my commentary. Does anyone have a reference to a good MVC explanation in simple terms? It would ideally be done with non-techie metaphor examples (e.g. similar to "Decorator pattern is like glasses") - one reason I failed was that all MVC examples I could come up with were development related. I once saw a list of pattern explanations but to the best of my memory MVC was not on it. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • multiple classes with same methods - best pattern

    - by Tony
    I have a few classes in my current project where validation of Email/Website addresses is necessary. The methods to do that are all the same. I wondered what's the best way to implement this, so I don't need to have these methods copy pasted everywhere? The classes themselves are not necessarily related, they only have those validation methods in common.

    Read the article

  • Perls Of Wisdom For a .Net Programmer [closed]

    - by DeanMc
    Hi Guys, I like to think that recently I have moved from complete beginner to beginner. It has been a hard road and one on which I took many wrong turns. Very rarely in any profession is there a place where so many rock stars gather, this is something I would like to take advantage of. What I would like to ask is what are your perls of wisdom for a .net programmer. They can be anything you feel of value, a concept, a book, a process that should be followed, anything of that nature, it doesn't have to be .net specific just contextual. Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >