Search Results

Search found 240 results on 10 pages for 'coupling'.

Page 7/10 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

• Spring Hibernate Connection through AOP standalone application

  - by Kiran

  I am trying to develop Annotation based Spring Hibernate standalone application to connect to DB. I've gone through the some blogs and wondered like we should not make use of hibernateTemplate becoz coupling your application tightly to the spring framework. For this reason, Spring recommends that HibernateTemplate no longer be used.Further more my requirement is changed to Spring Hibernate with AOP using Declarative Transaction management.I am new to AOP concepts. Can any one please give an example on Spring Hibernate Connection through AOP. That would be a great help to me. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• What are the different methods for injecting cross-cutting concerns?

  - by Stacy Vicknair

  What are the different methods for injecting cross-cutting concerns into a class so that I can minimize the coupling of the classes involved while keeping the code testable (TDD or otherwise)? For example, consider if I have a class that requires both logging functionality and centralized exception management. Should I use DIP and inject both required concerns via an interface into the class that requires them? Should I use a service locater that I pass to each class that will require some cross cutting functionality? Is there a different solution altogether? Am I asking the wrong question entirely?

  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

• 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

• Parent-child table layout

  - by cyberzed

  I'm currently planning a piece of software for dogbreeders and I'm in doubt about my datadesign...whether I'm doing something smart or stupid :) The plan at the moment is one holistic "dog" table sorta like this... Id | Name | FatherId | MotherId ------------------------------- 1 | A | 0 | 0 2 | B | 1 | 0 3 | C | 0 | 0 4 | D | 0 | 3 5 | E | 1 | 3 6 | F | 5 | 2 7 | G | 4 | 3 My questions is, is it common to make it like this or is it really sloppy. I can see a quick lookup reason to have it but I'm really in doubt whether it's good or bad in the end. I thinking it would be better designed if I had a rel-table on the side with Id coupling, but I'm really in doubt how well any of the cases are. A side note is that it'll only be me personally looking at the data this way (or someone adopting the project from me)

  Read the article

• [WPF] When Should I Retrieve Values from Textbox?

  - by they_soft

  Suppose I have a Window with TextBoxes I want to use the values. Right now I'm thinking of either: 1) Updating each associated value once the cursor is out of focus, and once the user presses Ok I start the program 2) Once the user presses Ok, I retrieve all the values at once then start the program I'm not sure which one is better though. First alternative seems more modular, but there's more semantic coupling since I each new box is supposed to be updating its respective value. I realize this isn't all that important, but I'm trying to understand when to centralize and when not to. Other better approachers are appreciated too.

  Read the article

• How to Write an E-Book

  A few days ago my attention was drawn to a tweet spat between Karl Seguin and Scott Hanselman around the relaunch of ASP.NET and the title element in HTML. Tempest in a teapot of course, but worthwhile as I did some googling on Karl and found his blog at codebetter.com. From there it was a short jump to his free e-book, The Foundations of Programming. This short book is distinguished by its orientation, opinionated, its tone, mentoring and its honesty, which is refreshing. In Foundations, Karl covers what he considers the basics of programming and good design, including test driven development, dependency injection and domain driven design. Karl is opinionated, as the topics suggest, and doesnt bother to pretend that he doesnt think what hes suggesting is the better way, not just another way. He is aligned with ALT.NET, and gives an excellent overview of what that means; an overview more enlightening than the ALT.NET site. ALT.NET has its critics, but presenting a strong opinion grabbed my attention as a reader. It is a short walk from opinionated to hectoring,  but Karl held my attention without insulting me. He takes the time to explain, with examples, from the ground up, the problems that test driven development and dependency injection solve. So for dependency injection he builds it up from no DI, to a hand crafted approach, to a full fledged DI framework. This approach is more persuasive than just proscriptive and engaged me as the reader to follow along with his train of thought. Foundations is not as pedantic as I am making it sound. The final ingredient in Karls mix is honesty. He acknowledges that sometimes unit testing does cost more up front and take more time. He admits that sometimes he designs something a certain way just to be testable. He also warns that focusing too much on DI and loose coupling can lead to the poor design you are trying to avoid. These points add depth to his argument as I could tell hes speaking from experience, with some hard won lessons. I enjoyed The Foundations of Programming. When I was done with it, I was amazed how much I got a lot out of its 80 some pages. It is a rarity to come across something worthwhile that is longer then a tweet, but shorter than a tome these days. Well done Karl.   -- Relevant Links -- The now titled and newly relaunched page in question: http://www.asp.net/ The pleasantly confusing ALT.NET homepage: http://altdotnet.org/ A longer review, with details, chapter listings and all that important stuff: http://accidentaltechnologist.com/book-reviews/book-review-foundations-of-programming-by-karl-seguin/Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection/IoC container practices when writing frameworks

  - by Dave Hillier

  I've used various IoC containers (Castle.Windsor, Autofac, MEF, etc) for .Net in a number of projects. I have found they tend to encourage a number of bad practices. Are there any established practices for IoC container use, particularly when providing a platform/framework? My aim as a framework writer is to make code as simple and as easy to use as possible. I'd rather write one line of code to construct an object than ten or even just two. For example, a couple of code smells that I've noticed and don't have good suggestions to: Large number of parameters (5) for constructors. Creating services tends to be complex; all of the dependencies are injected via the constructor - despite the fact that the components are rarely optional (except for maybe in testing). Lack of private and internal classes; this one may be a specific limitation of using C# and Silverlight, but I'm interested in how it is solved. It's difficult to tell what a frameworks interface is if all the classes are public; it allows me access to private parts that I probably shouldnt touch. Coupling the object lifecycle to the IoC container. It is often difficult to manually construct the dependencies required to create objects. Object lifecycle is too often managed by the IoC framework. I've seen projects where most classes are registered as Singletons. You get a lack of explicit control and are also forced to manage the internals (it relates to the above point, all classes are public and you have to inject them). For example, .Net framework has many static methods. such as, DateTime.UtcNow. Many times I have seen this wrapped and injected as a construction parameter. Depending on concrete implementation makes my code hard to test. Injecting a dependency makes my code hard to use - particularly if the class has many parameters. How do I provide both a testable interface, as well as one that is easy to use? What are the best practices?

  Read the article

• Where and how to reference composite MVP components?

  - by Lea Hayes

  I am learning about the MVP (Model-View-Presenter) Passive View flavour of MVC. I intend to expose events from view interfaces rather than using the observer pattern to remove explicit coupling with presenter. Context: Windows Forms / Client-Side JavaScript. I am led to believe that the MVP (or indeed MVC in general) pattern can be applied at various levels of a user interface ranging from the main "Window" to an embedded "Text Field". For instance, the model to the text field is probably just a string whereas the model to the "Window" contains application specific view state (like a persons name which resides within the contained text field). Given a more complex scenario: Documentation viewer which contains: TOC navigation pane Document view Search pane Since each of these 4 user interface items are complex and can be reused elsewhere it makes sense to design these using MVP. Given that each of these user interface items comprises of 3 components; which component should be nested? where? who instantiates them? Idea #1 - Embed View inside View from Parent View public class DocumentationViewer : Form, IDocumentationViewerView { public DocumentationViewer() { ... // Unclear as to how model and presenter are injected... TocPane = new TocPaneView(); } protected ITocPaneView TocPane { get; private set; } } Idea #2 - Embed Presenter inside View from Parent View public class DocumentationViewer : Form, IDocumentationViewerView { public DocumentationViewer() { ... // This doesn't seem like view logic... var tocPaneModel = new TocPaneModel(); var tocPaneView = new TocPaneView(); TocPane = new TocPanePresenter(tocPaneModel, tocPaneView); } protected TocPanePresenter TocPane { get; private set; } } Idea #3 - Embed View inside View from Parent Presenter public class DocumentationViewer : Form, IDocumentationViewerView { ... // Part of IDocumentationViewerView: public ITocPaneView TocPane { get; set; } } public class DocumentationViewerPresenter { public DocumentationViewerPresenter(DocumentationViewerModel model, IDocumentationViewerView view) { ... var tocPaneView = new TocPaneView(); var tocPaneModel = new TocPaneModel(model.Toc); var tocPanePresenter = new TocPanePresenter(tocPaneModel, tocPaneView); view.TocPane = tocPaneView; } } Some better idea...

  Read the article

• const vs. readonly for a singleton

  - by GlenH7

  First off, I understand there are folk who oppose the use of singletons. I think it's an appropriate use in this case as it's constant state information, but I'm open to differing opinions / solutions. (See The singleton pattern and When should the singleton pattern not be used?) Second, for a broader audience: C++/CLI has a similar keyword to readonly with initonly, so this isn't strictly a C# type question. (Literal field versus constant variable in C++/CLI) Sidenote: A discussion of some of the nuances on using const or readonly. My Question: I have a singleton that anchors together some different data structures. Part of what I expose through that singleton are some lists and other objects, which represent the necessary keys or columns in order to connect the linked data structures. I doubt that anyone would try to change these objects through a different module, but I want to explicitly protect them from that risk. So I'm currently using a "readonly" modifier on those objects*. I'm using readonly instead of const with the lists as I read that using const will embed those items in the referencing assemblies and will therefore trigger a rebuild of those referencing assemblies if / when the list(s) is/are modified. This seems like a tighter coupling than I would want between the modules, but I wonder if I'm obsessing over a moot point. (This is question #2 below) The alternative I see to using "readonly" is to make the variables private and then wrap them with a public get. I'm struggling to see the advantage of this approach as it seems like wrapper code that doesn't provide much additional benefit. (This is question #1 below) It's highly unlikely that we'll change the contents or format of the lists - they're a compilation of things to avoid using magic strings all over the place. Unfortunately, not all the code has converted over to using this singleton's presentation of those strings. Likewise, I don't know that we'd change the containers / classes for the lists. So while I normally argue for the encapsulations advantages a get wrapper provides, I'm just not feeling it in this case. A representative sample of my singleton public sealed class mySingl { private static volatile mySingl sngl; private static object lockObject = new Object(); public readonly Dictionary<string, string> myDict = new Dictionary<string, string>() { {"I", "index"}, {"D", "display"}, }; public enum parms { ABC = 10, DEF = 20, FGH = 30 }; public readonly List<parms> specParms = new List<parms>() { parms.ABC, parms.FGH }; public static mySingl Instance { get { if(sngl == null) { lock(lockObject) { if(sngl == null) sngl = new mySingl(); } } return sngl; } } private mySingl() { doSomething(); } } Questions: Am I taking the most reasonable approach in this case? Should I be worrying about const vs. readonly? is there a better way of providing this information?

  Read the article

• Given the presentation model pattern, is the view, presentation model, or model responsible for adding child views to an existing view at runtime?

  - by Ryan Taylor

  I am building a Flex 4 based application using the presentation model design pattern. This application will have several different components to it as shown in the image below. The MainView and DashboardView will always be visible and they each have corresponding presentation models and models as necessary. These views are easily created by declaring their MXML in the application root. <s:HGroup width="100%" height="100%"> <MainView width="75% height="100%"/> <DashboardView width="25%" height="100%"/> </s:HGroup> There will also be many WidgetViewN views that can be added to the DashboardView by the user at runtime through a simple drop down list. This will need to be accomplished via ActionScript. The drop down list should always show what WidgetViewN has already been added to the DashboardView. Therefore some state about which WidgetViewN's have been created needs to be stored. Since the list of available WidgetViewN and which ones are added to the DashboardView also need to be accessible from other components in the system I think this needs to be stored in a Model object. My understanding of the presentation model design pattern is that the view is very lean. It contains as close to zero logic as is practical. The view communicates/binds to the presentation model which contains all the necessary view logic. The presentation model is effectively an abstract representation of the view which supports low coupling and eases testability. The presentation model may have one or more models injected in in order to display the necessary information. The models themselves contain no view logic whatsoever. So I have a several questions around this design. Who should be responsible for creating the WidgetViewN components and adding these to the DashboardView? Is this the responsibility of the DashboardView, DashboardPresentationModel, DashboardModel or something else entirely? It seems like the DashboardPresentationModel would be responsible for creating/adding/removing any child views from it's display but how do you do this without passing in the DashboardView to the DashboardPresentationModel? The list of available and visible WidgetViewN components needs to be accessible to a few other components as well. Is it okay for a reference to a WidgetViewN to be stored/referenced in a model? Are there any good examples of the presentation model pattern online in Flex that also include creating child views at runtime?

  Read the article

• Unit testing in Django

  - by acjohnson55

  I'm really struggling to write effective unit tests for a large Django project. I have reasonably good test coverage, but I've come to realize that the tests I've been writing are definitely integration/acceptance tests, not unit tests at all, and I have critical portions of my application that are not being tested effectively. I want to fix this ASAP. Here's my problem. My schema is deeply relational, and heavily time-oriented, giving my model object high internal coupling and lots of state. Many of my model methods query based on time intervals, and I've got a lot of auto_now_add going on in timestamped fields. So take a method that looks like this for example: def summary(self, startTime=None, endTime=None): # ... logic to assign a proper start and end time # if none was provided, probably using datetime.now() objects = self.related_model_set.manager_method.filter(...) return sum(object.key_method(startTime, endTime) for object in objects) How does one approach testing something like this? Here's where I am so far. It occurs to me that the unit testing objective should be given some mocked behavior by key_method on its arguments, is summary correctly filtering/aggregating to produce a correct result? Mocking datetime.now() is straightforward enough, but how can I mock out the rest of the behavior? I could use fixtures, but I've heard pros and cons of using fixtures for building my data (poor maintainability being a con that hits home for me). I could also setup my data through the ORM, but that can be limiting, because then I have to create related objects as well. And the ORM doesn't let you mess with auto_now_add fields manually. Mocking the ORM is another option, but not only is it tricky to mock deeply nested ORM methods, but the logic in the ORM code gets mocked out of the test, and mocking seems to make the test really dependent on the internals and dependencies of the function-under-test. The toughest nuts to crack seem to be the functions like this, that sit on a few layers of models and lower-level functions and are very dependent on the time, even though these functions may not be super complicated. My overall problem is that no matter how I seem to slice it, my tests are looking way more complex than the functions they are testing.

  Read the article

• GUI device for throwing a ball

  - by Fredrik Johansson

  The hero has a ball, which shall be thrown with accuracy in a court on iPhone/iPad. The player is seen from above, in a 2D view. In game play, the player reach is between 1/15 and 1/6 of the height of the iPhone screen. The player will run, and try to outmaneuver his opponent, and then throw the ball at a specific location, which is guarded by the opponent (which is also shown on the screen). The player is controlled by a joystick, and that works ok, but how shall I control the stick? Maybe someone can propose a third control method? I've tried the following two approaches: Joystick: Hero has a reach of 1 meter, and this reach is marked with a semi-opaque circle around the player. The ball can be moved by a joystick. When the joystick is moved south, the ball is moved south within the reach circle. There is a direct coupling with the joystick and the position of the ball. I.e. when the joystick is moved max south, the ball is max south within the player reach. At each touch update the speed is calculated, and the Box2d ball position and ball speed are updated. NB, the ball will never be moved outside the reach as long as the player push the joystick. The ball is thrown by swiping the joystick to make the ball move, and then releasing the joystick. At release, the ball will get a smoothed speed of the joystick. Joystick Problem: The throwing accuracy gets bad, because the joystick can not be that big, and a small movement results in quite a large movement of the ball. If the user does not release before the end of the joystick maximum end point, the ball will stop, and when the user releases the joystick the speed of the ball will be zero. Bad... Touch pad A force is applied to the ball by a sweep on a touchpad. The ball is released when the sweep is ended, or when the ball is moved outside the player reach. As there is no one to one mapping between the swipe and the ball position, the precision can be improved. A large swipe can result in a small ball movement. Touch Pad Problem A touchpad is less intuitive. Users do not seem to know what to do with the touch pad. Some tap the touchpad, and then the ball just falls to the ground. As there is no one-to-one mapping, the ball can be moved outside the reach, and then it will just fall to the ground. It's a bit hard to control the ball, especially if the player also moves.

  Read the article

• Register Game Object Components in Game Subsystems? (Component-based Game Object design)

  - by topright

  I'm creating a component-based game object system. Some tips: GameObject is simply a list of Components. There are GameSubsystems. For example, rendering, physics etc. Each GameSubsystem contains pointers to some of Components. GameSubsystem is a very powerful and flexible abstraction: it represents any slice (or aspect) of the game world. There is a need in a mechanism of registering Components in GameSubsystems (when GameObject is created and composed). There are 4 approaches: 1: Chain of responsibility pattern. Every Component is offered to every GameSubsystem. GameSubsystem makes a decision which Components to register (and how to organize them). For example, GameSubsystemRender can register Renderable Components. pro. Components know nothing about how they are used. Low coupling. A. We can add new GameSubsystem. For example, let's add GameSubsystemTitles that registers all ComponentTitle and guarantees that every title is unique and provides interface to quering objects by title. Of course, ComponentTitle should not be rewrited or inherited in this case. B. We can reorganize existing GameSubsystems. For example, GameSubsystemAudio, GameSubsystemRender, GameSubsystemParticleEmmiter can be merged into GameSubsystemSpatial (to place all audio, emmiter, render Components in the same hierarchy and use parent-relative transforms). con. Every-to-every check. Very innefficient. con. Subsystems know about Components. 2: Each Subsystem searches for Components of specific types. pro. Better performance than in Approach 1. con. Subsystems still know about Components. 3: Component registers itself in GameSubsystem(s). We know at compile-time that there is a GameSubsystemRenderer, so let's ComponentImageRender will call something like GameSubsystemRenderer::register(ComponentRenderBase*). pro. Performance. No unnecessary checks as in Approach 1. con. Components are badly coupled with GameSubsystems. 4: Mediator pattern. GameState (that contains GameSubsystems) can implement registerComponent(Component*). pro. Components and GameSubystems know nothing about each other. con. In C++ it would look like ugly and slow typeid-switch. Questions: Which approach is better and mostly used in component-based design? What Practice says? Any suggestions about implementation of Approach 4? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Best Creational Pattern for loggers in a multi-threaded system?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  This is a follow up question on my past questions : Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application As suggested by others, I am putting this question separately. As the learning from the last question. In a multi-threaded environment, the logger should be made thread safe and probably asynchronous (where in messages are queued while a background thread does writing releasing the requesting object thread). The logger could be signleton or it can be a per-group logger which is a generalization of the above. Now, the question that arise is how does logger should be assigned to the object? There are two options I can think of: 1. Object requesting for the logger: Should each of the object call some global API such as get_logger()? Such an API returns "the" singleton or the group logger. However, I feel this involves assumption about the Application environment to implement the logger -which I think is some kind of coupling. If the same object needs to be used by other application - this new application also need to implement such a method. 2. Assign logger through some known API The other alternative approach is to create a kind of virtual class which is implemented by application based on App's own structure and assign the object sometime in the constructor. This is more generalized method. Unfortunately, when there are so many objects - and rather a tree of objects passing on the logger objects to each level is quite messy. My question is there a better way to do this? If you need to pick any one of the above, which approach is would you pick and why? Other questions remain open about how to configure them: How do objects' names or ID are assigned so that will be used for printing on the log messages (as the module names) How do these objects find the appropriate properties (such as log levels, and other such parameters) In the first approach, the central API needs to deal with all this varieties. In the second approach - there needs to be additional work. Hence, I want to understand from the real experience of people, as to how to write logger effectively in such an environment.

  Read the article

• Enterprise Service Bus (ESB): Important architectural piece to a SOA or is it just vendor hype?

  Is an Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) an important architectural piece to a Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA), or is it just vendor hype in order to sell a particular product such as SOA-in-a-box? According to IBM.com, an ESB is a flexible connectivity infrastructure for integrating applications and services; it offers a flexible and manageable approach to service-oriented architecture implementation. With this being said, it is my personal belief that ESBs are an important architectural piece to any SOA. Additionally, generic design patterns have been created around the integration of web services in to ESB regardless of any vendor. ESB design patterns, according to Philip Hartman, can be classified in to the following categories: Interaction Patterns: Enable service interaction points to send and/or receive messages from the bus Mediation Patterns: Enable the altering of message exchanges Deployment Patterns: Support solution deployment into a federated infrastructure Examples of Interaction Patterns: One-Way Message Synchronous Interaction Asynchronous Interaction Asynchronous Interaction with Timeout Asynchronous Interaction with a Notification Timer One Request, Multiple Responses One Request, One of Two Possible Responses One Request, a Mandatory Response, and an Optional Response Partial Processing Multiple Application Interactions Benefits of the Mediation Pattern: Mediator promotes loose coupling by keeping objects from referring to each other explicitly, and it lets you vary their interaction independently Design an intermediary to decouple many peers Promote the many-to-many relationships between interacting peers to “full object status” Examples of Interaction Patterns: Global ESB: Services share a single namespace and all service providers are visible to every service requester across an entire network Directly Connected ESB: Global service registry that enables independent ESB installations to be visible Brokered ESB: Bridges services that are reluctant to expose requesters or providers to ESBs in other domains Federated ESB: Service consumers and providers connect to the master or to a dependent ESB to access services throughout the network References: Mediator Design Pattern. (2011). Retrieved 2011, from SourceMaking.com: http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/mediator Hartman, P. (2006, 24 1). ESB Patterns that "Click". Retrieved 2011, from The Art and Science of Being an IT Architect: http://artsciita.blogspot.com/2006/01/esb-patterns-that-click.html IBM. (2011). WebSphere DataPower XC10 Appliance Version 2.0. Retrieved 2011, from IBM.com: http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/wdpxc/v2r0/index.jsp?topic=%2Fcom.ibm.websphere.help.glossary.doc%2Ftopics%2Fglossary.html Oracle. (2005). 12 Interaction Patterns. Retrieved 2011, from Oracle® BPEL Process Manager Developer's Guide: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B31017_01/integrate.1013/b28981/interact.htm#BABHHEHD

  Read the article

• How can a solo programmer become a good team player?

  - by Nick

  I've been programming (obsessively) since I was 12. I am fairly knowledgeable across the spectrum of languages out there, from assembly, to C++, to Javascript, to Haskell, Lisp, and Qi. But all of my projects have been by myself. I got my degree in chemical engineering, not CS or computer engineering, but for the first time this fall I'll be working on a large programming project with other people, and I have no clue how to prepare. I've been using Windows all of my life, but this project is going to be very unix-y, so I purchased a Mac recently in the hopes of familiarizing myself with the environment. I was fortunate to participate in a hackathon with some friends this past year -- both CS majors -- and excitingly enough, we won. But I realized as I worked with them that their workflow was very different from mine. They used Git for version control. I had never used it at the time, but I've since learned all that I can about it. They also used a lot of frameworks and libraries. I had to learn what Rails was pretty much overnight for the hackathon (on the other hand, they didn't know what lexical scoping or closures were). All of our code worked well, but they didn't understand mine, and I didn't understand theirs. I hear references to things that real programmers do on a daily basis -- unit testing, code reviews, but I only have the vaguest sense of what these are. I normally don't have many bugs in my little projects, so I have never needed a bug tracking system or tests for them. And the last thing is that it takes me a long time to understand other people's code. Variable naming conventions (that vary with each new language) are difficult (__mzkwpSomRidicAbbrev), and I find the loose coupling difficult. That's not to say I don't loosely couple things -- I think I'm quite good at it for my own work, but when I download something like the Linux kernel or the Chromium source code to look at it, I spend hours trying to figure out how all of these oddly named directories and files connect. It's a programming sin to reinvent the wheel, but I often find it's just quicker to write up the functionality myself than to spend hours dissecting some library. Obviously, people who do this for a living don't have these problems, and I'll need to get to that point myself. Question: What are some steps that I can take to begin "integrating" with everyone else? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Dealing with coworkers when developing, need advice [closed]

  - by Yippie-Kai-Yay

  I developed our current project architecture and started developing it on my own (reaching something like, revision 40). We're developing a simple subway routing framework and my design seemed to be done extremely well - several main models, corresponding views, main logic and data structures were modeled "as they should be" and fully separated from rendering, algorithmic part was also implemented apart from the main models and had a minor number of intersection points. I would call that design scalable, customizable, easy-to-implement, interacting mostly based on the "black box interaction" and, well, very nice. Now, what was done: I started some implementations of the corresponding interfaces, ported some convenient libraries and wrote implementation stubs for some application parts. I had the document describing coding style and examples of that coding style usage (my own written code). I forced the usage of more or less modern C++ development techniques, including no-delete code (wrapped via smart pointers) and etc. I documented the purpose of concrete interface implementations and how they should be used. Unit tests (mostly, integration tests, because there wasn't a lot of "actual" code) and a set of mocks for all the core abstractions. I was absent for 12 days. What do we have now (the project was developed by 4 other members of the team): 3 different coding styles all over the project (I guess, two of them agreed to use the same style :), same applies to the naming of our abstractions (e.g CommonPathData.h, SubwaySchemeStructures.h), which are basically headers declaring some data structures. Absolute lack of documentation for the recently implemented parts. What I could recently call a single-purpose-abstraction now handles at least 2 different types of events, has tight coupling with other parts and so on. Half of the used interfaces now contain member variables (sic!). Raw pointer usage almost everywhere. Unit tests disabled, because "(Rev.57) They are unnecessary for this project". ... (that's probably not everything). Commit history shows that my design was interpreted as an overkill and people started combining it with personal bicycles and reimplemented wheels and then had problems integrating code chunks. Now - the project still does only a small amount of what it has to do, we have severe integration problems, I assume some memory leaks. Is there anything possible to do in this case? I do realize that all my efforts didn't have any benefit, but the deadline is pretty soon and we have to do something. Did someone have a similar situation? Basically I thought that a good (well, I did everything that I could) start for the project would probably lead to something nice, however, I understand that I'm wrong. Any advice would be appreciated, sorry for my bad english.

  Read the article

• How to become a good team player?

  - by Nick

  I've been programming (obsessively) since I was 12. I am fairly knowledgeable across the spectrum of languages out there, from assembly, to C++, to Javascript, to Haskell, Lisp, and Qi. But all of my projects have been by myself. I got my degree in chemical engineering, not CS or computer engineering, but for the first time this fall I'll be working on a large programming project with other people, and I have no clue how to prepare. I've been using Windows all of my life, but this project is going to be very unix-y, so I purchased a Mac recently in the hopes of familiarizing myself with the environment. I was fortunate to participate in a hackathon with some friends this past year -- both CS majors -- and excitingly enough, we won. But I realized as I worked with them that their workflow was very different from mine. They used Git for version control. I had never used it at the time, but I've since learned all that I can about it. They also used a lot of frameworks and libraries. I had to learn what Rails was pretty much overnight for the hackathon (on the other hand, they didn't know what lexical scoping or closures were). All of our code worked well, but they didn't understand mine, and I didn't understand theirs. I hear references to things that real programmers do on a daily basis -- unit testing, code reviews, but I only have the vaguest sense of what these are. I normally don't have many bugs in my little projects, so I have never needed a bug tracking system or tests for them. And the last thing is that it takes me a long time to understand other people's code. Variable naming conventions (that vary with each new language) are difficult (__mzkwpSomRidicAbbrev), and I find the loose coupling difficult. That's not to say I don't loosely couple things -- I think I'm quite good at it for my own work, but when I download something like the Linux kernel or the Chromium source code to look at it, I spend hours trying to figure out how all of these oddly named directories and files connect. It's a programming sin to reinvent the wheel, but I often find it's just quicker to write up the functionality myself than to spend hours dissecting some library. Obviously, people who do this for a living don't have these problems, and I'll need to get to that point myself. Question: What are some steps that I can take to begin "integrating" with everyone else? Thanks!

  Read the article

• best way to "introduce" OOP/OOD to team of experienced C++ engineers

  - by DXM

  I am looking for an efficient way, that also doesn't come off as an insult, to introduce OOP concepts to existing team members? My teammates are not new to OO languages. We've been doing C++/C# for a long time so technology itself is familiar. However, I look around and without major infusion of effort (mostly in the form of code reviews), it seems what we are producing is C code that happens to be inside classes. There's almost no use of single responsibility principle, abstractions or attempts to minimize coupling, just to name a few. I've seen classes that don't have a constructor but get memset to 0 every time they are instantiated. But every time I bring up OOP, everyone always nods and makes it seem like they know exactly what I'm talking about. Knowing the concepts is good, but we (some more than others) seem to have very hard time applying them when it comes to delivering actual work. Code reviews have been very helpful but the problem with code reviews is that they only occur after the fact so to some it seems we end up rewriting (it's mostly refactoring, but still takes lots of time) code that was just written. Also code reviews only give feedback to an individual engineer, not the entire team. I am toying with the idea of doing a presentation (or a series) and try to bring up OOP again along with some examples of existing code that could've been written better and could be refactored. I could use some really old projects that no one owns anymore so at least that part shouldn't be a sensitive issue. However, will this work? As I said most people have done C++ for a long time so my guess is that a) they'll sit there thinking why I'm telling them stuff they already know or b) they might actually take it as an insult because I'm telling them they don't know how to do the job they've been doing for years if not decades. Is there another approach which would reach broader audience than a code review would, but at the same time wouldn't feel like a punishment lecture? I'm not a fresh kid out of college who has utopian ideals of perfectly designed code and I don't expect that from anyone. The reason I'm writing this is because I just did a review of a person who actually had decent high-level design on paper. However if you picture classes: A - B - C - D, in the code B, C and D all implement almost the same public interface and B/C have one liner functions so that top-most class A is doing absolutely all the work (down to memory management, string parsing, setup negotiations...) primarily in 4 mongo methods and, for all intents and purposes, calls almost directly into D. Update: I'm a tech lead(6 months in this role) and do have full support of the group manager. We are working on a very mature product and maintenance costs are definitely letting themselves be known.

  Read the article

• Attaching two objects and changing their world matrices accordingly

  - by A-Type

  I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the transformations required to bind two objects together in either a two-way or one-way relationship. I will need to implement both types. For the first case, I want to be able to 'couple' two ships together in space. The ships have different mass, of course. Forces applied to either ship will use combined mass and moment of inertia to calculate and move both ships. The trick is, being sure that the point at which they are coupled remains the same, and they don't move at all relative to each other. The second case is similar: I want a ship to be able to enter the atmosphere of a planet and move relative to the planet. The planet will be orbiting the sun, which is fixed at 0,0,0. Essentially, when the ship is sitting still outside of the atmosphere, the planet will move past it on its course-- but when the ship is sitting still inside the atmosphere, it moves and rotates with the planet, so that it is always relative to the horizon. Essentially, the vertices which make up the ship are now transformed just like the ones that make up the planet, except that the ship can move itself around relative to the planet. I get the feeling I can implement both of these with the same code. Essentially, I am thinking of giving each object (which I call Fixtures) a list of "slave" Fixtures onto which that Fixture's world matrix is imposed. So, this would be the planet imposing its world on any contained ships. In the case of coupling, I would simply make each ship a slave of the other, somehow. Obviously I can't just multiply the ship's world matrix by the planet's, or each ship by the others. What I'd like some help with is what calculations to make in order to get a nice, seamless relative world to the other object. I was thinking maybe I could just multiply the world of the slave by the inverse of the master, but then when you couple two ships you would lose all that world data. So, perhaps I need an intermediate "world" which is the absolute world, but use a secondary "final world" to actually transform the objects?

  Read the article

• Syncing client and server CRUD operations using json and php

  - by Justin

  I'm working on some code to sync the state of models between client (being a javascript application) and server. Often I end up writing redundant code to track the client and server objects so I can map the client supplied data to the server models. Below is some code I am thinking about implementing to help. What I don't like about the below code is that this method won't handle nested relationships very well, I would have to create multiple object trackers. One work around is for each server model after creating or loading, simply do $model->clientId = $clientId; IMO this is a nasty hack and I want to avoid it. Adding a setCientId method to all my model object would be another way to make it less hacky, but this seems like overkill to me. Really clientIds are only good for inserting/updating data in some scenarios. I could go with a decorator pattern but auto generating a proxy class seems a bit involved. I could use a generic proxy class that uses a __call function to allow for original object data to be accessed, but this seems wrong too. Any thoughts or comments? $clientData = '[{name: "Bob", action: "update", id: 1, clientId: 200}, {name:"Susan", action:"create", clientId: 131} ]'; $jsonObjs = json_decode($clientData); $objectTracker = new ObjectTracker(); $objectTracker->trackClientObjs($jsonObjs); $query = $this->em->createQuery("SELECT x FROM Application_Model_User x WHERE x.id IN (:ids)"); $query->setParameters("ids",$objectTracker->getClientSpecifiedServerIds()); $models = $query->getResults(); //Apply client data to server model foreach ($models as $model) { $clientModel = $objectTracker->getClientJsonObj($model->getId()); ... } //Create new models and persist foreach($objectTracker->getNewClientObjs() as $newClientObj) { $model = new Application_Model_User(); .... $em->persist($model); $objectTracker->trackServerObj($model); } $em->flush(); $resourceResponse = $objectTracker->createResourceResponse(); //Id mappings will be an associtave array representing server id resources with client side // id. //This method Dosen't seem to flexible if we want to return additional data with each resource... //Would have to modify the returned data structure, seems like tight coupling... //Ex return value: //[{clientId: 200, id:1} , {clientId: 131, id: 33}];

  Read the article

• No more internet connection after update in 14.04 with Intel Dual Band Wireless AC 7260

  - by luis

  My Dell XPS 15 (haswell) was working fine until I stupidly accepted recently to apply Ubuntu updates. Since then, my wifi does not work (it shows "device not managed" when clicking wifi icon in toolbar). Even USB to Ethernet adapter does not seem to work. Bluetooth at least "sees" other bluetooth devices around... See below output from dmesg (dmesg |grep iwl) : [ 886.462459] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: irq 51 for MSI/MSI-X [ 886.462561] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: Direct firmware load failed with error -2 [ 886.462562] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: Falling back to user helper [ 886.463284] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: loaded firmware version 22.1.7.0 op_mode iwlmvm [ 886.475345] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Dual Band Wireless AC 7260, REV=0x144 [ 886.475433] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: L1 Enabled; Disabling L0S [ 886.475684] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: L1 Enabled; Disabling L0S [ 886.689214] ieee80211 phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'iwl-mvm-rs' Below the output from modinfo iwlwifi: filename: /lib/modules/3.13.0-29- generic/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwlwifi.ko license: GPL author: Copyright(c) 2003-2013 Intel Corporation <[email protected]> version: in-tree: description: Intel(R) Wireless WiFi driver for Linux firmware: iwlwifi-100-5.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-1000-5.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-135-6.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-105-6.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-2030-6.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-2000-6.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-5150-2.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-5000-5.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-6000g2b-6.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-6000g2a-5.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-6050-5.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-6000-4.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-3160-7.ucode firmware: iwlwifi-7260-7.ucode srcversion: 1E6912E109D5A43B310FB34 alias: pci:v00008086d0000095Asv*sd00005490bc*sc*i* (a pack of lines of kind "alias: pci:xxxxx...." that I guess are not helpful) alias: pci:v00008086d0000095Bsv*sd00005290bc*sc*i* depends: cfg80211 intree: Y vermagic: 3.13.0-29-generic SMP mod_unload modversions signer: Magrathea: Glacier signing key sig_key: 66:02:CB:36:F1:31:3B:EA:01:C4:BD:A9:65:67:CF:A7:23:C9:70:D8 sig_hashalgo: sha512 parm: swcrypto:using crypto in software (default 0 [hardware]) (int) parm: 11n_disable:disable 11n functionality, bitmap: 1: full, 2: disable agg TX, 4: disable agg RX, 8 enable agg TX (uint) parm: amsdu_size_8K:enable 8K amsdu size (default 0) (int) parm: fw_restart:restart firmware in case of error (default true) (bool) parm: antenna_coupling:specify antenna coupling in dB (defualt: 0 dB) (int) parm: wd_disable:Disable stuck queue watchdog timer 0=system default, 1=disable, 2=enable (default: 0) (int) parm: nvm_file:NVM file name (charp) parm: bt_coex_active:enable wifi/bt co-exist (default: enable) (bool) parm: led_mode:0=system default, 1=On(RF On)/Off(RF Off), 2=blinking, 3=Off (default: 0) (int) parm: power_save:enable WiFi power management (default: disable) (bool) parm: power_level:default power save level (range from 1 - 5, default: 1) (int) I downloaded the latest versions of iwlwifi firmware from git (git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git; copy iwlwifi-3160-9.ucode iwlwifi-7260-9.ucode iwlwifi-7265-9.ucode to /lib/firmware and reboot) but as you can imagine it did not help. Update #1: Downloaded from http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Drivers/iwlwifi?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=iwlwifi-7260-ucode-22.15.8.0.tgz and copied the file into /lib/firmware. After reloading it with modprobe, it seems to be OK: [ 14.761283] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: enabling device (0000 -> 0002) [ 14.761472] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: irq 51 for MSI/MSI-X [ 14.772478] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: loaded firmware version 22.15.8.0 op_mode iwlmvm [ 14.800274] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: Detected Intel(R) Dual Band Wireless AC 7260, REV=0x144 [ 14.800349] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: L1 Enabled; Disabling L0S [ 14.800657] iwlwifi 0000:06:00.0: L1 Enabled; Disabling L0S [ 15.007048] ieee80211 phy0: Selected rate control algorithm 'iwl-mvm-rs' However, clicking in wifi in the toolbar still shows "device not managed". Any clues? Many thanks! Luis

  Read the article

• Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

  - by Goodsquirrel

  I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

  Read the article

• The SmartAssembly Rearchitecture

  - by Simon Cooper

  You may have noticed that not a lot has happened to SmartAssembly in the past few months. However, the team has been very busy behind the scenes working on an entirely new version of SmartAssembly. SmartAssembly 6.5 Over the past few releases of SmartAssembly, the team had come to the realisation that the current 'architecture' - grown organically, way before RedGate bought it, from a simple name obfuscator over the years into a full-featured obfuscator and assembly instrumentation tool - was simply not up to the task. Not for what we wanted to do with it at the time, and not what we have planned for the future. Not only was it not up to what we wanted it to do, but it was severely limiting our development capabilities; long-standing bugs in the root architecture that couldn't be fixed, some rather...interesting...design decisions, and convoluted logic that increased the complexity of any bugfix or new feature tenfold. So, we set out to fix this. Earlier this year, a new engine was written on which SmartAssembly would be based. Over the following few months, each feature was ported over to the new engine and extensively tested by our existing unit and integration tests. The engine was linked into the existing UI (no easy task, due to the tight coupling between the UI and old engine), and existing RedGate products were tested on the new SmartAssembly to ensure the new engine acted in the same way. The result is SmartAssembly 6.5. The risks of a rearchitecture Are there risks to rearchitecting a product like SmartAssembly? Of course. There was a lot of undocumented behaviour in the old engine, and as part of the rearchitecture we had to find this behaviour, define it, and document it. In the process we found some behaviour of the old engine that simply did not make sense; hence the changes in pruning & obfuscation behaviour in the release notes. All the special edge cases we had to find, document, and re-implement. There was a chance that these special cases would not be found until near the end of the project, when everything is functionally complete and interacting together. By that stage, it would be hard to go back and change anything without a whole lot of extra work, delaying the release by months. We always knew this was a possibility; our initial estimate of the time required was '4 months, ± 4 months'. And that was including various mitigation strategies to reduce the likelihood of these issues being found right at the end. Fortunately, this worst-case did not happen. However, the rearchitecture did produce some benefits. As well as numerous bug fixes that we could not fix any other way, we've also added logging that lets you find out exactly why a particular field or property wasn't pruned or obfuscated. There's a new command line interface, we've tested it with WP7.1 and Silverlight 5, and we've added a new option to error reporting to improve the performance of instrumented apps by ~10%, at the cost of inaccurate line numbers in reports. So? What differences will I see? Largely none. SmartAssembly 6.5 produces the same output as SmartAssembly 6.2. The performance of 6.5 will be much faster for some users, and generally the same as 6.2 for the remaining. If you've encountered a bug with previous versions of SmartAssembly, I encourage you to try 6.5, as it has most likely been fixed in the rearchitecture. If you encounter a bug with 6.5, please do tell us; we'll be doing another release quite soon, so we'll aim to fix any issues caused by 6.5 in that release. Most importantly, the new architecture finally allows us to implement some Big Things with SmartAssembly we've been planning for many months; these will fundamentally change how you build, release and monitor your application. Stay tuned for further updates!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >