Search Results

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

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

  • 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

  • Function chaining depending on boolean result

    - by Markive
    This is just an efficiency question really.. I'm interested to know if there is a more efficient or logical way that people use to handle this sort of scenario. In my asp.net application I am running a script to generate a new project my code at the top level looks like this: Dim ok As Boolean = True ok = createFolderStructure() If ok Then ok = createMDB() If ok Then ok = createProjectConfig() If ok Then ok = updateCompanyConfig() I create a boolean and each function returns a boolean result, the next function in this chain will only run if the previous one was successful. I do this because an asp.net application will continue to run through the page life cycle unless there is an unhandled exception and I don't want my whole application to be screwed up if something in the chain goes wrong (there is a lot of copying and deleting of files etc.. in this example). I was just wondering how other people handle this scenario? the vb.net single line if statement is quite succinct but I'm wondering if there is a better way?

    Read the article

  • How can I use Object Oriented Javascript to interact with HTML Objects

    - by Steve
    I am very new to object orientated javascript, with experience writing gui's in python and java. I am trying to create html tables that I can place in locations throughout a webpage. Each html table would have two css layouts that control if it is selected or not. I can write all of the interaction if I only have one table. It gets confusing when I have multiple tables. I am wondering how to place these tables throughout a blank webpage and then access the tables individually. I think I am having trouble understanding how inheritance and hierarchy works in javascript/html. NOTE: I am not asking how to make a table. I am trying to dynamically create multiple tables and place them throughout a webpage. Then access their css independently and change it (move them to different locations or change the way the look, independently of the other tables).

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Connecting data to a GUI - OOP

    - by tau
    I have an application with several graphs and tables on it. I worked fast and just made classes like Graph and Table that each contained a request object (pseudo-code): class Graph { private request; public function setDateRange(dateRange) { request.setDateRange(dateRange); } public function refresh() { request.getData(function() { //refresh the display }); } } Upon a GUI event (say, someone changes the date range dropdown), I'd just call the setters on the Graph instance and then refresh it. Well, when I added other GUI elements like tables and whatnot, they all basically had similar methods (setDateRange and other things common to the request). What are some more elegant OOP ways of doing this? The application is very simple and I don't want to over-architect it, but I also don't want to have a bunch of classes with basically the same methods that are just routing to a request object. I also don't want to set up each GUI class as inheriting from the request class, but I'm open to any ideas really.

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern to cut down on code duplication when subclassing Activities in Android?

    - by Daniel Lew
    I've got a common task that I do with some Activities - downloading data then displaying it. I've got the downloading part down pat; it is, of course, a little tricky due to the possibility of the user changing the orientation or cancelling the Activity before the download is complete, but the code is there. There is enough code handling these cases such that I don't want to have to copy/paste it to each Activity I have, so I thought to create an abstract subclass Activity itself such that it handles a single background download which then launches a method which fills the page with data. This all works. The issue is that, due to single inheritance, I am forced to recreate the exact same class for any other type of Activity - for example, I use Activity, ListActivity and MapActivity. To use the same technique for all three requires three duplicate classes, except each extends a different Activity. Is there a design pattern that can cut down on the code duplication? As it stands, I have saved much duplication already, but it pains me to see the exact same code in three classes just so that they each subclass a different type of Activity.

    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

  • command design pattern usage

    - by sagie
    Hi. I've read 3 descriptions of the command design pattern: wikipedia, dofactory and source making. In all of them, the UML shows a relation between the client to the receiver & the concrete command, but no relation to the invoker. But in all 3 examples the client is the one that initiates the invoker and call its Execute method. I think that should be a relation to the invoker as well. Am I missing somthing in here? Maybe even a basic UML knowladge?

    Read the article

  • Design patter for extending Android's activities?

    - by Carl
    While programming on Android, I end up writing a parent activity which is extended by several others. A bit like ListActivity. My parent activity extends Activity. if I intend to use a Map or a List, I can't use my parent activity as superclass - the child activity can only extend one activity obviously. As such I end up writing my parent activities with the same logic for Activity, ListActivity, MapActivity and so forth. What am I looking for is some sort of trait functionality/design pattern which would help in this case. Any suggestions?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Files mapping architecture

    - by user326198
    I need to know How I can achieve this goal by classes : we have two different applications in the company (App1 , App2) Appl can export xml with know items ( ID , Name) we need app2 to import this data but App2 display different items (CarID, CarName) and this items defined like this with the mapping info <CarID> <Mapping name="ID"/> </CarID> <CarNAme> <Mapping name="Name"/> </CarNAme>" How I can achieve this as classes or ARCHITECTURE , i will develop this with c# I need one interface because we may support different type of files not just xml

    Read the article

  • commad design pattern usage

    - by sagie
    Hi. I've read 3 descriptions of the command design pattern: wikipedia, dofactory and source making. In all of them, the UML shows a relation between the client to the receiver & the concrete command, but no relation to the invoker. But in all 3 examples the client is the one that initiates the invoker and call its Execute method. I think that should be a relation to the invoker as well. Am I missing somthing in here? Maybe even a basic UML knowladge?

    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

  • C++ error message output format

    - by sub
    If I want to trigger an error in my interpreter I call this function: Error( ErrorType type, ErrorSeverity severity, const char* msg, int line ); However, with that I can only output Name error: Undefined variable in line 1 instead of Name error: Undefined variable 'someVariableName' in line 1 I'm working entirely with strings (except for the error messages as they all are constant at the moment), so sprintf won't work. What is the best way to create an efficient error function that can output a constant message combined with a string that describes which object, e.g.: a non-existing variable, triggered the error?

    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

  • Ignoring (serious) errors to keep the program alive?

    - by SQuirreL bites
    One of the main things I wanted to achieve in my experimental programming language was: When errors occur (Syntax, Name, Type, etc.) keep the program running, no matter how serious or devastating it is. I know that this is probably very bad, but I just wanted something that doesn't kill itself on every error - I find it interesting what happens when a serious error occurs but the program continues. Does this "paradigm" have a name? I mean expect for How bad is it to do the above? Are there programs in use out there that just follow: "Hey, this is a fatal, unexpected error - but you know what? I don't care!"?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

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