Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

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 65/133 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

  • Using an embedded DB (SQLite / SQL Compact) for Message Passing within an app?

    - by wk1989
    Hello, Just out of curiosity, for applications that have a fairly complicated module tree, would something like sqlite/sql compact edition work well for message passing? So if I have modules containing data such as: \SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC, \SubSystemB\SubSubSystemC\ModuleA\ModuleDataX Using traditional message passing/routing, you have to go through intermediate modules in order to pass a message to ModuleB to request say ModuleDataC. Instead of doing that, if we we simply store "\SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC" in a sqlite database, getting that data is as simple as a sql query and needs no routing and passing stuff around. Has anyone done this before? Even if you haven't, do you foresee any issues & performance impact? The only concern I have right now would be the passing of custom types, e.g. if ModuleDataC is a custom data structure or a pointer, I'll need some way of storing the data structure into the DB or storing the pointer into the DB. Thanks, JW EDIT One usage case I haven't thought about is when you want to send a message from ModuleA to ModuleB to get ModuleB to do something rather than just getting/setting data. Is it possible to do this using an embedded DB? I believe callback from the DB would be needed, how feasible is this?

    Read the article

  • C++ Iterator Pipelining Designs

    - by Kirakun
    Suppose we want to apply a series of transformations, int f1(int), int f2(int), int f3(int), to a list of objects. A naive way would be SourceContainer source; TempContainer1 temp1; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(temp1), f1); TempContainer2 temp2; transform(temp1.begin(), temp1.end(), back_inserter(temp2), f2); TargetContainer target; transform(temp2.begin(), temp2.end(), back_inserter(target), f3); This first solution is not optimal because of the extra space requirement with temp1 and temp2. So, let's get smarter with this: int f123(int n) { return f3(f2(f1(n))); } ... SourceContainer source; TargetContainer target; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(target), f123); This second solution is much better because not only the code is simpler but more importantly there is less space requirement without the intermediate calculations. However, the composition f123 must be determined at compile time and thus is fixed at run time. How would I try to do this efficiently if the composition is to be determined at run time? For example, if this code was in a RPC service and the actual composition--which can be any permutation of f1, f2, and f3--is based on arguments from the RPC call.

    Read the article

  • What is the correct approach to using GWT with persistent objects?

    - by dankilman
    Hi, I am currently working on a simple web application through Google App engine using GWT. It should be noted that this is my first attempt at such a task. I have run into to following problem/dilema: I have a simple Class (getters/setters and nothing more. For the sake of clarity I will refer to this Class as DataHolder) and I want to make it persistent. To do so I have used JDO which required me to add some annotations and more specifically add a Key field to be used as the primary key. The problem is that using the Key class requires me to import com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key which is ok on the server side, but then I can't use DataHolder on the client side, because GWT doesn't allow it (as far as I know). So I have created a sister Class ClientDataHolder which is almost identical, though it doesn't have all the JDO annotations nor the Key field. Now this actually works but It feels like I'm doing something wrong. Using this approach would require maintaining to separate classes for each entity I wish to have. So my question is: Is there a better way of doing this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • where are the frameworks for creating libraries?

    - by fayer
    whenever i create a php library (not a framework) i tend to reinvent everything everytime. "where to put configuration options" "which design pattern to use here" "how should all the classes extend each other" and so on... then i think, isn't there a good library framework to use anywhere? it's like a framework for a web application (symfony, cakephp...) but instead of creating a web application, this framework will help coder to create a library, providing all the standard structure and classes (observer pattern, dependency injection etc). i think that will be the next major thing if not available right now. in this way there will be a standard to follow when creating libraries, or else, it's like a djungle when everyone creates their own structure, and a lot of coders just code without thinking of reusability etc. there isn't any framework for creating libraries at the moment? if not, don't u agree with me that this is the way to do it, with a library framework? cause i am really throwing a lot of time (weeks!) just thinking about how to organize things, both in code and file level, when i should just start to code the logic. share your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • What is the role of the Router Object in MVC based frameworks

    - by Saif Bechan
    In most MVC based framework I see a router object. If I look at it splits up the uri and decides what controller should be used, and which action should be fired. Even though this makes a lot of sense, I can not give this a place in the MVC patern. Is splitting up the uri not the job of the controller. And then the controller should just decide which class and function to run.

    Read the article

  • Using a regex pattern to find revision numbers from a svn merge

    - by zyzy
    svn diff -rXX:HEAD Will give me a format like this, if there has been a merge between those revisions: Merged /<branch>:rXXX,XXX-XXX or Merged /<branch>:rXXX I'm not very familiar with regex and am trying to put together a pattern which will match all the numbers (merged revision numbers) AFTER matching the "Merged /branch:r" part. So far I have this to match the first part: [Mm]erged.*[a-zA-Z]:r Thanks in adv. for the help :)

    Read the article

  • How do I write a Java text file viewer for big log files

    - by Hannes de Jager
    I am working on a software product with an integrated log file viewer. Problem is, its slow and unstable for really large files because it reads the whole file into memory when you view a log file. I'm wanting to write a new log file viewer that addresses this problem. What are the best practices for writing viewers for large text files? How does editors like notepad++ and VIM acomplish this? I was thinking of using a buffered Bi-directional text stream reader together with Java's TableModel. Am I thinking along the right lines and are such stream implementations available for Java?

    Read the article

  • PHP Access property of a class from within a class instantiated in the original class.

    - by Iain
    I'm not certain how to explain this with the correct terms so maybe an example is the best method... $master = new MasterClass(); $master->doStuff(); class MasterClass { var $a; var $b; var $c; var $eventProccer; function MasterClass() { $this->a = 1; $this->eventProccer = new EventProcess(); } function printCurrent() { echo '<br>'.$this->a.'<br>'; } function doStuff() { $this->printCurrent(); $this->eventProccer->DoSomething(); $this->printCurrent(); } } class EventProcess { function EventProcess() {} function DoSomething() { // trying to access and change the parent class' a,b,c properties } } My problem is i'm not certain how to access the properties of the MasterClass from within the EventProcess-DoSomething() method? I would need to access, perform operations on and update the properties. The a,b,c properties will be quite large arrays and the DoSomething() method would be called many times during the execuction of the script. Any help or pointers would be much appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • how to make objects globally accessible?

    - by fayer
    i have this code: class IC_Core { /** * Database * @var IC_Database */ public static $db = NULL; /** * Core * @var IC_Core */ protected static $_instance = NULL; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance() { if ( ! is_object(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance = new self(); self::initialize(self::$_instance); } return self::$_instance; } private static function initialize(IC_Core $IC_Core) { self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); } } but when i wanna access IC_Database with: $IC = IC_Core::getInstance(); $IC->db->add() // it says that its not an object. i think the problem lies in self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); but i dont know how to make it work. could someone give me a hand=) thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to properly dispose of an object

    - by VoodooChild
    Hi Guys, I am experiencing something weird and have a workaround already, but I don't think I understood it well. If I call the Method below numerous times within a class: public void Method() { Foo a = new Foo(); a.Delegate1Handler = ViewSomething(); } So I am reinitializing "a" every time but for some reason a.Delegate1Handler is still around from the previous initialization, and therefore ViewSomething() is called again and again and again.... I feel like I am forgetting something critical here? Foo's guts look like: public delegate void Delegate1(T t); public Delegate1 Delegate1Handler { get; set; }

    Read the article

  • Question about a possible design pattern...

    - by Aftershock
    I have such a design in my mind.... My aim is to reuse the program with some features included and without some features. What is it called in the literature? class feature1 { void feature1function1(); void feature1function2(); } class feature2 { void feature2function1(); void feature2function2(); } class program: feature1, feature2 { void function1() { feature2function1(); } void function2() { feature1function1(); feature2function1(); } void execute() { function1(); function2(); } }

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL - Lightweight O/RM?

    - by CoffeeAddict
    I've heard from some that LINQ to SQL is good for lightweight apps. But then I see LINQ to SQL being used for Stackoverflow, and a bunch of other .coms I know (from interviewing with them). Ok, so is this true? for an e-commerce site that's bringing in millions and you're typically only doing basic CRUDs most the time with the exception of an occasional stored proc for something more complex, is LINQ to SQL complete enough and performance-wise good enough or able to be tweaked enough to run happily on an e-commerce site? I've heard that you just need to tweak performance on the DB side when using LINQ to SQL for a better approach. So there are really 2 questions here: 1) Meaning/scope/definition of a "Lightweight" O/RM solution: What the heck does "lightweight" mean when people say LINQ to SQL is a "lightweight O/RM" and is that true??? If this is so lightweight then why do I see a bunch of huge .coms using it? Is it good enough to run major .coms (obviously it looks like it is) and what determines what the context of "lightweight" is...it's such a generic statement. 2) Performance: I'm working on my own .com and researching different O/RMs. I'm not really looking at the Entity Framework (yet), just want to figure out the LINQ to SQL basics here and determine if it will be efficient enough for me. The problem I think is you can't tweak or control the SQL it generates...

    Read the article

  • using partials in view helpers

    - by takeshin
    Creating custom Zend View helpers I often end up with something like: // logic here if ($condition) { $output = <<<EOS... } else { $output = <<<EOS... } or using switch. Then to eliminate this, I create setPartial(), getPartial() and htmlize() for using external .phtml's. This is not the best solution, because partials do not support doctype changing. Is there any better solution, than creating abstract class handling this common case? Are there any ready Zend solutions for this case? Separate view helper for each case? And where to put common code?

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

    - by Nix
    All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

    Read the article

  • Which pattern to use for logging? Dependency Injection or Service Locator?

    - by andlju
    Consider this scenario. I have some business logic that now and then will be required to write to a log. interface ILogger { void Log(string stuff); } interface IDependency { string GetInfo(); } class MyBusinessObject { private IDependency _dependency; public MyBusinessObject(IDependency dependency) { _dependency = dependency; } public string DoSomething(string input) { // Process input var info = _dependency.GetInfo(); var intermediateResult = PerformInterestingStuff(input, info); if (intermediateResult== "SomethingWeNeedToLog") { // How do I get to the ILogger-interface? } var result = PerformSomethingElse(intermediateResult); return result; } } How would you get the ILogger interface? I see two main possibilities; Pass it using Dependency Injection on the constructor. Get it via a singleton Service Locator. Which method would you prefer, and why? Or is there an even better pattern? Update: Note that I don't need to log ALL method calls. I only want to log a few (rare) events that may or may not occur within my method.

    Read the article

  • Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

    - by Stimul8d
    I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

    Read the article

  • Using an interface as a constructor parameter in Java?

    - by aperson
    How would I be able to accomplish the following: public class testClass implements Interface { public testClass(Interface[] args) { } } So that I could declare Interface testObject = new testClass(new class1(4), new class2(5)); Where class1 and class2 are also classes that implement Interface. Also, once I accomplish this, how would I be able to refer to each individual parameter taken in to be used in testClass? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Passing arguments between classes - use public properties or pass a properties class as argument?

    - by devoured elysium
    So let's assume I have a class named ABC that will have a list of Point objects. I need to make some drawing logic with them. Each one of those Point objects will have a Draw() method that will be called by the ABC class. The Draw() method code will need info from ABC class. I can only see two ways to make them have this info: Having Abc class make public some properties that would allow draw() to make its decisions. Having Abc class pass to draw() a class full of properties. The properties in both cases would be the same, my question is what is preferred in this case. Maybe the second approach is more flexible? Maybe not? I don't see here a clear winner, but that sure has more to do with my inexperience than any other thing. If there are other good approaches, feel free to share them. Here are both cases: class Abc1 { public property a; public property b; public property c; ... public property z; public void method1(); ... public void methodn(); } and here is approach 2: class Abc2 { //here we make take down all properties public void method1(); ... public void methodn(); } class Abc2MethodArgs { //and we put them here. this class will be passed as argument to //Point's draw() method! public property a; public property b; public property c; ... public property z; } Also, if there are any "formal" names for these two approaches, I'd like to know them so I can better choose the tags/thread name, so it's more useful for searching purposes. That or feel free to edit them.

    Read the article

  • Should we avoid to use Object as the input parameter/ output value of a method?

    - by developer.cyrus
    Take Java syntax as an example, though the question itself is language independent. If the following snippet takes an object MyAbstractEmailTemplate as input argument in the method setTemplate, the class MyGateway will then become tightly-coupled with the object MyAbstractEmailTemplate, which lessens the re-usability of the class MyGateway. A compromise is to use dependency-injection to ease the instantiation of MyAbstractEmailTemplate. This might solve the coupling problem to some extent, but the interface is still rigid, hardly providing enough ?exibility to other developers/ applications. So if we only use primitive data type (or even plain XML in web service) as the input/ output of a method, it seems the coupling problem no longer exists. So what do you think? public class MyGateway { protected MyAbstractEmailTemplate template; publoc void setTemplate(MyAbstractEmailTemplate template) { this.template = template; } }

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Is this a problem typically solved with IOC?

    - by Dirk
    My current application allows users to define custom web forms through a set of admin screens. it's essentially an EAV type application. As such, I can't hard code HTML or ASP.NET markup to render a given page. Instead, the UI requests an instance of a Form object from the service layer, which in turn constructs one using a several RDMBS tables. Form contains the kind of classes you would expect to see in such a context: Form= IEnumerable<FormSections>=IEnumerable<FormFields> Here's what the service layer looks like: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenForm(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } } Everything works splendidly (for a while). The UI is none the wiser about what sections/fields exist in a given form: It happily renders the Form object it receives into a functional ASP.NET page. A few weeks later, I get a new requirement from the business: When viewing a non-editable (i.e. read-only) versions of a form, certain field values should be merged together and other contrived/calculated fields should are added. No problem I say. Simply amend my service class so that its methods are more explicit: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId){ //construct and a concrete implementation of Form //apply additional transformations to the form } } Again everything works great and balance has been restored to the force. The UI continues to be agnostic as to what is in the Form, and our separation of concerns is achieved. Only a few short weeks later, however, the business puts out a new requirement: in certain scenarios, we should apply only some of the form transformations I referenced above. At this point, it feels like the "explicit method" approach has reached a dead end, unless I want to end up with an explosion of methods (OpenFormViewingScenario1, OpenFormViewingScenario2, etc). Instead, I introduce another level of indirection: public interface IFormViewCreator{ void CreateView(Form form); } public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId, IFormViewCreator formViewCreator){ //construct a concrete implementation of Form //apply transformations to the dynamic field list return formViewCreator.CreateView(form); } } On the surface, this seems like acceptable approach and yet there is a certain smell. Namely, the UI, which had been living in ignorant bliss about the implementation details of OpenFormForViewing, must possess knowledge of and create an instance of IFormViewCreator. My questions are twofold: Is there a better way to achieve the composability I'm after? (perhaps by using an IoC container or a home rolled factory to create the concrete IFormViewCreator)? Did I fundamentally screw up the abstraction here?

    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 | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >