Search Results

Search found 3642 results on 146 pages for 'architectural 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 69/146 | < Previous Page | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >

  • Which design pattern fits - strategy makes sense ?

    - by user554833
    --Bump *One desperate try to get someone's attention I have a simple database table that stores list of users who have subscribed to folders either by email OR to show up on the site (only on the web UI). In the storage table this is controlled by a number(1 - show on site 2- by email). When I am showing in UI I need to show a checkbox next to each of folders for which the user has subscribed (both email & on site). There is a separate table which stores a set of default subscriptions which would apply to each user if user has not expressed his subscription. This is basically a folder ID and a virtual group name. But, Email subscriptions do not count for applying these default groups. So if no "on site" subscription apply default group. Thats the rule. How about a strategy pattern here (Pseudo code) Interface ISubscription public ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithoutDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionOnlyDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) does this even make sense? I would be more than glad for receive any criticism / help / notes. I am learning. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Domain model for an online WYSYWG webpage generator / runtime

    - by CharlieBrown
    Hi all, I'm using C#, MVC, NHibernate and StructureMap as my IoC container, and need some ideas regarding my domain model. The application I'm working has two parts: an Authoring part and a Runtime part. The idea is to allow the user to create a webpage in Authoring (mostly a form actually) by choosing from a set of predefined controls. That webpage will be later used as a form in a call center environment (Runtime part), or may be used in an intranet portal, etc. Basically something similar to what a CMS would do. The difference is, of course, that the webpage/form the author generates will be used and fulfilled in runtime, and that authros should be able to freely create the webpage they want without limitations. I have a draft working model that allows a RunController to iterate over the ScriptPage (my class for the "generated webpage") Controls collection and uses partial views to render each of them. Works kind of fine. Basically I have a common ScriptControl class, and then I can create for example a TextInputControl or a DropDownControl by inheriting from that base class. I can also figure out the Authoring part of the app, although that will surely be fun in itself for sure. :) The biggest problem I have now is persistance. In order to be flexible, I want to be able to add more controls, and template controls (think of an Address composite control) in sepparate DLLs, so I think having a relational model that handles very possible control is not the way to go. My current thinking is using a kind of ObjectStore: binary-serializing the ScriptPage object that contains the List collection and deserializing at Runtime, but I'm not sure how good will it work with NHibernate and how good the performance will be. Serializing a small "page" with 10 controls results in 7964 bytes, for example. Any ideas out there? Thanks in advance, excuse the length. ;)

    Read the article

  • which design choose? - pros and cons

    - by Guarava Makanili
    Which of these 3 approches would choose and why? // This is the one I would choose class Car { } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } } // in that case the problem might be when we use ORM framework and we try to invoke save with parameter Car class Car { private FeeCalculator calculator; public double calculateFee() { return calculator.calculateFee(this); } } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } } // in that case the problem mentioned above is solved, but I don't like this design class Car { public double calculateFee(FeeCalculator calculator) { return calculator.calculateFee(this); } } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } }

    Read the article

  • Magic Method __set() on a Instanciated Object

    - by streetparade
    Ok i have a problem, sorry if i cant explaint it clear but the code speaks for its self. i have a class which generates objects from a given class name; Say we say the class is Modules: public function name($name) { $this->includeModule($name); try { $module = new ReflectionClass($name); $instance = $module->isInstantiable() ? $module->newInstance() : "Err"; $this->addDelegate($instance); } catch(Exception $e) { Modules::Name("Logger")->log($e->getMessage()); } return $this; } The AddDelegate Method: protected function addDelegate($delegate) { $this->aDelegates[] = $delegate; } The __call Method public function __call($methodName, $parameters) { $delegated = false; foreach ($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if(class_exists(get_class($delegate))) { if(method_exists($delegate,$methodName)) { $method = new ReflectionMethod(get_class($delegate), $methodName); $function = array($delegate, $methodName); return call_user_func_array($function, $parameters); } } } The __get Method public function __get($property) { foreach($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if ($delegate->$property !== false) { return $delegate->$property; } } } All this works fine expect the function __set public function __set($property,$value) { //print_r($this->aDelegates); foreach($this->aDelegates as $k=>$delegate) { //print_r($k); //print_r($delegate); if (property_exists($delegate, $property)) { $delegate->$property = $value; } } //$this->addDelegate($delegate); print_r($this->aDelegates); } class tester { public function __set($name,$value) { self::$module->name(self::$name)->__set($name,$value); } } Module::test("logger")->log("test"); // this logs, it works echo Module::test("logger")->path; //prints /home/bla/test/ this is also correct But i cant set any value to class log like this Module::tester("logger")->path ="/home/bla/test/log/"; The path property of class logger is public so its not a problem of protected or private property access. How can i solve this issue? I hope i could explain my problem clear.

    Read the article

  • How to write this in better way?

    - by dario
    Hi all. Let's look at this code: IList<IHouseAnnouncement> list = new List<IHouseAnnouncement>(); var table = adapter.GetData(); //get data from repository object -> DataTable if (table.Rows.Count >= 1) { for (int i = 0; i < table.Rows.Count-1; i++) { var anno = new HouseAnnouncement(); anno.Area = float.Parse(table.Rows[i][table.powierzchniaColumn].ToString()); anno.City = table.Rows[i][table.miastoColumn].ToString(); list.Add(anno); } } return list; Is it better way to write this in less code and better fashion (must be :-) )? Maybe using labda (but let mi know how)? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • I'd want a method to be called only by objects of a specific class

    - by mp
    Suppose you have this class: public class A { private int number; public setNumber(int n){ number = n; } } I'd like the method setNumber could be called only by objects of a specific class. Does it make sense? I know it is not possible, is it? Which are the design alternatives? Some well known design pattern? Sorry for the silly question, but I'm a bit rusty in OO design.

    Read the article

  • c++ design question: Can i query the base classes to find the number of derived classes satisfying a

    - by vivekeviv
    I have a piece of code like this class Base { public: Base(bool _active) { active = _active; } void Configure(); void Set Active(bool _active); private: bool active; }; class Derived1 : public Base { public: Derived1(bool active):Base(active){} }; similarly Derived 2 and Derived 3 Now if i call derived1Object.Configure, i need to check how many of the derived1Obj, derived2Obj,derived3Obj is active. Should i add this in the "Base" class like a function say, GetNumberOfActive()? And If the implementation is like this: class Imp { public: void Configure() { //Code instantiating a particular Derived1/2/3 Object int GetNumberOfActiveDerivedObj(); baseRef.Configure(int numberOfActiveDerivedClasses); } prive: Derived1 dObj1(true); Derived2 dObj2(false); Derived3 dObj3(true); }; should i calculate the numberOfActive Derived Objects in Imp Class? THanks

    Read the article

  • Separating data from the UI code with Linq to SQL entities

    - by Sir Psycho
    If it's important to keep data access 'away' from business and presentation layers, what alternatives or approaches can I take so that my LINQ to SQL entities can stay in the data access layer? So far I seem to be simply duplicating the classes produced by sqlmetal, and passing those object around instead simply to keep the two layers appart. For example, I have a table in my DB called Books. If a user is creating a new book via the UI, the Book class generated by sqlmetal seems like a perfect fit although I'm tightly coupling my design by doing so.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for loading multiple message types

    - by lukem00
    As I was looking through SO I came across a question about handling multiple message types. My concern is - how do I load such a message in a neat way? I decided to have a separate class with a method which loads one message each time it's invoked. This method should create a new instance of a concrete message type (say AlphaMessage, BetaMessage, GammaMessage, etc.) and return it as a Message. class MessageLoader { public Message Load() { // ... } } The code inside the method is something which looks really awful to me and I would very much like to refactor it/get rid of it: Message msg = Message.Load(...); // load yourself from whatever source if (msg.Type == MessageType.Alpha) return new AlphaMessage(msg); if (msg.Type == MessageType.Beta) return new BetaMessage(msg); // ... In fact, if the whole design looks just too messy and you guys have a better solution, I'm ready to restructure the whole thing. If my description is too chaotic, please let me know what it's missing and I shall edit the question. Thank you all.

    Read the article

  • Instantiate a javascript module only one time.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    Hey guys, I follow a module pattern where I instantiate components, however, a lot of time a component will only be instantiate one time (example: a comment system for an article). For now I instantiate in the same JS file. but I was wondering if it is the wrong approach? It kind of make no sense to instantiate in the same file and always only once. But at the same time, if this file is in the page I want to have access to my module without instantiate from elsewhere, and IF I need another instance, I just create another from elsewhere... Here is the pattern I follow: ApplicationNamespace.Classname = function() { // constructor function privateFunctionInit() { // private } this.privilegedFunction = function() { // privileged privateFunction(); }; privateFunctionInit() }; ApplicationNamespace.Classname.prototype = { Method: function(){} } var class = new ApplicationNamespace.Classname(); What do you think, wrong approach, or is this good?

    Read the article

  • Decorator Design Pattern Use With Service Objects (wSingleton)

    - by Dustin
    I'm working on a project where I need to add some functionality to a service object and using a decorator to add it in seems like a good fit. However, I've only ever used decorators with simple beans, never on a singleton like a service object. Has anyone ever done this before and what are the pros and cons? In this case I don't think creating a subclass will work so a decorator seems to be a good fit. What are your thoughts on doing this?

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • Looking for an appropriate design pattern

    - by user1066015
    I have a game that tracks user stats after every match, such as how far they travelled, how many times they attacked, how far they fell, etc, and my current implementations looks somewhat as follows (simplified version): Class Player{ int id; public Player(){ int id = Math.random()*100000; PlayerData.players.put(id,new PlayerData()); } public void jump(){ //Logic to make the user jump //... //call the playerManager PlayerManager.jump(this); } public void attack(Player target){ //logic to attack the player //... //call the player manager PlayerManager.attack(this,target); } } Class PlayerData{ public static HashMap<int, PlayerData> players = new HashMap<int,PlayerData>(); int id; int timesJumped; int timesAttacked; } public void incrementJumped(){ timesJumped++; } public void incrementAttacked(){ timesAttacked++; } } Class PlayerManager{ public static void jump(Player player){ players.get(player.getId()).incrementJumped(); } public void incrementAttacked(Player player, Player target){ players.get(player.getId()).incrementAttacked(); } } So I have a PlayerData class which holds all of the statistics, and brings it out of the player class because it isn't part of the player logic. Then I have PlayerManager, which would be on the server, and that controls the interactions between players (a lot of the logic that does that is excluded so I could keep this simple). I put the calls to the PlayerData class in the Manager class because sometimes you have to do certain checks between players, for instance if the attack actually hits, then you increment "attackHits". The main problem (in my opinion, correct me if I'm wrong) is that this is not very extensible. I will have to touch the PlayerData class if I want to keep track of a new stat, by adding methods and fields, and then I have to potentially add more methods to my PlayerManager, so it isn't very modulized. If there is an improvement to this that you would recommend, I would be very appreciative. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Structuring iPhone/iPad application views

    - by Mark
    I have an idea about an application that I want to build and Im new to iPhone/iPad development (but not new to development in other languages/frameworks such as .NET and Java). I want to layout some views on the screen so that they animate (slide in) from different directions into their places. The question is about the strucuture of the application, if I have say 4 rectanglular areas on the screen that contain business data, such as contacts (name, photo, etc...) and they all take up different widths of the screen (say the first contact takes up one row of the screen, but the next 2 take up half the width of the next row each, and so on). Should I create a custom view for the different sized contact views, (i.e. LargeCustomView and SmallCustomView, and any other special type that I make) or should it all be one type, say, CustomerDetailsView which could be stretched to fit at design time? Also, if there were, say, 3 different instances of the same custom view on the one screen, are there 3 instances of the view controller also? Im a little confused about powering the data behind a view, can someone shed some light on this for me? Do I just set the properties (say an instance variable ContactForView) on the view controller for each instance? Thanks for any help you can give Cheers, Mark

    Read the article

  • Object Events, how do are they implemented

    - by Malfist
    Events are really awesome, and I wouldn't know what I would do without them, but they're a mystery to me. I'm talking about events in a sense, a function(s) is called if a property, or value, a special event happens. I have only the vaguest idea how these actually work. I know it's an observer pattern, but I don't truly know how it works and/or how to implement it. Can someone explain that to me?

    Read the article

  • How can I achieve this kind of relationship (inheritance, composition, something else)?

    - by Tim
    I would like to set up a foundation of classes for an application, two of which are person and student. A person may or may not be a student and a student is always a person. The fact that a student “is a” person led me to try inheritance, but I can't see how to make it work in the case where I have a DAO that returns an instance of person and I then want to determine if that person is a student and call student related methods for it. class Person { private $_firstName; public function isStudent() { // figure out if this person is a student return true; // (or false) } } class Student extends Person { private $_gpa; public function getGpa() { // do something to retrieve this student's gpa return 4.0; // (or whatever it is) } } class SomeDaoThatReturnsPersonInstances { public function find() { return new Person(); } } $myPerson = SomeDaoThatReturnsPersonInstances::find(); if($myPerson->isStudent()) { echo 'My person\'s GPA is: ', $myPerson->getGpa(); } This obviously doesn't work, but what is the best way to achieve this effect? Composition doesn't sond right in my mind because a person does not “have a” student. I'm not looking for a solution necessarily but maybe just a term or phrase to search for. Since I'm not really sure what to call what I'm trying to do, I haven't had much luck. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • What is the definition of a Service object ?

    - by Maskime
    I've been working a lot with PHP. But recently i was sent on a work wich use Java. In PHP i used to do a lot of Singleton object but this pattern has not the same signification in Java that it has in PHP. So i wanted to go for an utility class (a class with static method) but my chief doesn't like this kind of classes and ask me to go for services object. So my guess was that a service object is just a class with a constructor that implement some public methods... Am i right ?

    Read the article

  • Does database affect classes?

    - by satyanarayana
    I had created one class User and UserDAOImpl class for querying DB using class User. As there is one table to be queried, these two classes are sufficient for me. What if there is a case where new fields are to be added to that one table is to be divided into 3 tables( user_info, user_profile and user_address) to store user? As new fields are added, I need to change classes User and UserDAOImpl, it seems these two are not sufficient. It seems database changes affect my classes. In this case, do I need to divide class User into 3 classes as tables are changes? Can any one suggest me how can I solve this without making too many changes?

    Read the article

  • Problem understanding Inheritance

    - by dhruvbird
    I've been racking my brains over inheritance for a while now, but am still not completely able to get around it. For example, the other day I was thinking about relating an Infallible Human and a Fallible Human. Let's first define the two: Infallible Human: A human that can never make a mistake. It's do_task() method will never throw an exception Fallible Human: A human that will occasionally make a mistakes. It's do_task() method may occasionally throw a ErrorProcessingRequest Exception The question was: IS an infallible human A fallible human OR IS a fallible human AN infallible human? The very nice answer I received was in the form of a question (I love these since it gives me rules to answer future questions I may have). "Can you pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected OR can you pass a fallible human where an infallible human is expected?" It seems apparent that you can pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected, but not the other way around. I guess that answered my question. However, it still feels funny saying "An infallible human is a fallible human". Does anyone else feel queasy when they say it? It almost feels as if speaking out inheritance trees is like reading out statements from propositional calculus in plain English (the if/then implication connectives don't mean the same as that in spoken English). Does anyone else feel the same?

    Read the article

  • What exactly is GRASP's Controller about?

    - by devoured elysium
    What is the idea behind Grasp's Controller pattern? My current interpretation is that sometimes you want to achieve something that needs to use a couple of classes but none of those classes could or has access to the information needed to do it, so you create a new class that does the job, having references to all the needed classes(this is, could be the information expert). Is this a correct view of what Grasp's Controller is about? Generally when googling or SO'ing controller, I just get results about MVC's (and whatnot) which are topics that I don't understand about, so I'd like answers that don't assume I know ASP.NET's MVC or something :( Thanks

    Read the article

  • c# class design - what can I use instead of "static abstract"?

    - by Ryan
    I want to do the following public abstract class MyAbstractClass { public static abstract int MagicId { get; } public static void DoSomeMagic() { // Need to get the MagicId value defined in the concrete implementation } } public class MyConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass { public static override int MagicId { get { return 123; } } } However I can't because you can't have static abstract members. I understand why I can't do this - any recommendations for a design that will achieve much the same result? (For clarity - what I am trying to do is provide a library with an abstract base class but the concrete versions MUST implement a few properties/methods themselves and yes, there are good reasons for keeping it static.)

    Read the article

  • What is the sense of "Feature Oriented Programming" (FOP) in C++, and would it make sense in Java an

    - by ivan_ivanovich_ivanoff
    Hello! Sadly, I can't remember where I read it, but... ...in C++ you can derive a class from a template parameter. Im pretty sure it was called Feature Oriented Programming (FOP) and meant to be somehow useful. It was something like: template <class T> class my_class : T { // some very useful stuff goes here ;) } My questions about this: What is the sense of such pattern? Since this it not possible in Java / C#, how this pattern is achieved in these languages? Can it be expected to be implemented in Java / C# one day? (Well, first Java would need to get rid of type erasure) EDIT: I'm really not talking about generics in Java / C# (where you can't derive a class from a generic type parameter)

    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 | 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76  | Next Page >