Search Results

Search found 15120 results on 605 pages for 'mock driven design'.

Page 7/605 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Is this kind of design - a class for Operations On Object - correct?

    - by Mithir
    In our system we have many complex operations which involve many validations and DB activities. One of the main Business functionality could have been designed better. In short, there were no separation of layers, and the code would only work from the scenario in which it was first designed at, and now there were more scenarios (like requests from an API or from other devices) So I had to redesign. I found myself moving all the DB code to objects which acts like Business to DB objects, and I've put all the business logic in an Operator kind of a class, which I've implemented like this: First, I created an object which will hold all the information needed for the operation let's call it InformationObject. Then I created an OperatorObject which will take the InformationObject as a parameter and act on it. The OperatorObject should activate different objects and validate or check for existence or any scenario in which the business logic is compromised and then make the operation according to the information on the InformationObject. So my question is - Is this kind of implementation correct? PS, this Operator only works on a single Business-wise Operation.

    Read the article

  • Creating Mock object of Interface with type-hint in method fails on PHPUnit

    - by Mark
    I created the following interface: <?php interface Action { public function execute(\requests\Request $request, array $params); } Then I try to make a Mock object of this interface with PHPUnit 3.4, but I get the following error: Fatal error: Declaration of Mock_Action_b389c0b1::execute() must be compatible with that of Action::execute() in D:\Xampp\xampp\php\PEAR\PHPUnit\Framework\TestCase.php(1121) : eval()'d code on line 2 I looked through the stack trace I got from PHPUnit and found that it creates a Mock object that implements the interface Action, but creates the execute method in the following way: <?php public function execute($request, array $params) As you can see, PHPUnit takes over the array type-hint, but forgets about \requests\Request. Which obviously leads to an error. Does anyone knows a workaround for this error? I also tried it without namespaces, but I still get the same error.

    Read the article

  • Patterns for dynamic CMS components (event driven?)

    - by CitrusTree
    Sorry my title is not great, this is my first real punt at moving 100% to OO as I've been procedural for more years than I can remember. I'm finding it hard to understand if what I'm trying to do is possible. Depending on people's thoughts on the 2 following points, I'll go down that route. The CMS I'm putting together is quote small, however focuses very much on different types of content. I could easily use Drupal which I'm very comfortable with, but I want to give myself a really good reasons to move myself into design patterns / OO-PHP 1) I have created a base 'content' class which I wish to be able to extend to handle different types of content. The base class, for example, handles HTML content, and extensions might handle XML or PDF output instead. On the other hand, at some point I may wish to extend the base class for a given project completely. I.e. if class 'content-v2' extended class 'content' for that site, any calls to that class should actually call 'content-v2' instead. Is that possible? If the code instantiates an object of type 'content' - I actually want it to instantiate one of type 'content-v2'... I can see how to do it using inheritance, but that appears to involve referring to the class explicitly, I can't see how to link the class I want it to use instead dynamically. 2) Secondly, the way I'm building this at the moment is horrible, I'm not happy with it. It feels very linear indeed - i.e. get session details get content build navigation theme page publish. To do this all the objects are called 1-by-1 which is all very static. I'd like it to be more dynamic so that I can add to it at a later date (very closely related to first question). Is there a way that instead of my orchestrator class calling all the other classes 1-by-1, then building the whole thing up at the end, that instead each of the other classes can 'listen' for specific events, then at the applicable point jump in and do their but? That way the orchestrator class would not need to know what other classes were required, and call them 1-by-1. Sorry if I've got this all twisted in my head. I'm trying to build this so it's really flexible.

    Read the article

  • Recommended design pattern for object with optional and modifiable attributtes? [on hold]

    - by Ikuzen
    I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

    Read the article

  • DDD Model Design and Repository Persistence Performance Considerations

    - by agarhy
    So I have been reading about DDD for some time and trying to figure out the best approach on several issues. I tend to agree that I should design my model in a persistent agnostic manner. And that repositories should load and persist my models in valid states. But are these approaches realistic practically? I mean its normal for a model to hold a reference to a collection of another type. Persisting that model should mean persist the entire collection. Fine. But do I really need to load the entire collection every time I load the model? Probably not. So I can have specialized repositories. Some that load maybe a subset of the object graph via DTOs and others that load the entire object graph. But when do I use which? If I have DTOs, what's stopping client code from directly calling them and completely bypassing the model? I can have mappers and factories to create my models from DTOs maybe? But depending on the design of my models that might not always work. Or it might not allow my models to be created in a valid state. What's the correct approach here?

    Read the article

  • Why can't we capture the design of software more effectively?

    - by Ira Baxter
    As engineers, we all "design" artifacts (buildings, programs, circuits, molecules...). That's an activity (design-the-verb) that produces some kind of result (design-the-noun). I think we all agree that design-the-noun is a different entity than the artifact itself. A key activity in the software business (indeed, in any business where the resulting product artifact needs to be enhanced) is to understand the "design (the-noun)". Yet we seem, as a community, to be pretty much complete failures at recording it, as evidenced by the amount of effort people put into rediscovering facts about their code base. Ask somebody to show you the design of their code and see what you get. I think of a design for software as having: An explicit specification for what the software is supposed to do and how well it does it An explicit version of the code (this part is easy, everybody has it) An explanation for how each part of the code serves to achieve the specification A rationale as to why the code is the way it is (e.g., why a particualr choice rather than another) What is NOT a design is a particular perspective on the code. For example [not to pick specifically on] UML diagrams are not designs. Rather, they are properties you can derive from the code, or arguably, properties you wish you could derive from the code. But as a general rule, you can't derive the code from UML. Why is it that after 50+ years of building software, why don't we have regular ways to express this? My personal opinion is that we don't have good ways to express this. Even if we do, most of the community seems so focused on getting "code" that design-the-noun gets lost anyway. (IMHO, until design becomes the purpose of engineering, with the artifact extracted from the design, we're not going to get around this). What have you seen as means for recording designs (in the sense I have described it)? Explicit references to papers would be good. Why do you think specific and general means have not been succesful? How can we change this?

    Read the article

  • (Database Design - products attributes): What is better option for product attribute database design

    - by meyosef
    Hi, I new in database design. What is better option for product attribute database design for cms?(Please suggest other options also). option 1: 1 table products{ id product_name color price attribute_name1 attribute_value1 attribute_name2 attribute_value2 attribute_name3 attribute_value3 } option 2: 3 tables products{ id product_name color price } attribute{ id name value } products_attribute{ products_id attribute_id } Thanks, Yosef

    Read the article

  • What are the software design essentials? [closed]

    - by Craig Schwarze
    I've decided to create a 1 page "cheat sheet" of essential software design principles for my programmers. It doesn't explain the principles in any great depth, but is simply there as a reference and a reminder. Here's what I've come up with - I would welcome your comments. What have I left out? What have I explained poorly? What is there that shouldn't be? Basic Design Principles The Principle of Least Surprise – your solution should be obvious, predictable and consistent. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) - the simplest solution is usually the best one. You Ain’t Gonna Need It (YAGNI) - create a solution for the current problem rather than what might happen in the future. Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) - rigorously remove duplication from your design and code. Advanced Design Principles Program to an interface, not an implementation – Don’t declare variables to be of a particular concrete class. Rather, declare them to an interface, and instantiate them using a creational pattern. Favour composition over inheritance – Don’t overuse inheritance. In most cases, rich behaviour is best added by instantiating objects, rather than inheriting from classes. Strive for loosely coupled designs – Minimise the interdependencies between objects. They should be able to interact with minimal knowledge of each other via small, tightly defined interfaces. Principle of Least Knowledge – Also called the “Law of Demeter”, and is colloquially summarised as “Only talk to your friends”. Specifically, a method in an object should only invoke methods on the object itself, objects passed as a parameter to the method, any object the method creates, any components of the object. SOLID Design Principles Single Responsibility Principle – Each class should have one well defined purpose, and only one reason to change. This reduces the fragility of your code, and makes it much more maintainable. Open/Close Principle – A class should be open to extension, but closed to modification. In practice, this means extracting the code that is most likely to change to another class, and then injecting it as required via an appropriate pattern. Liskov Substitution Principle – Subtypes must be substitutable for their base types. Essentially, get your inheritance right. In the classic example, type square should not inherit from type rectangle, as they have different properties (you can independently set the sides of a rectangle). Instead, both should inherit from type shape. Interface Segregation Principle – Clients should not be forced to depend upon methods they do not use. Don’t have fat interfaces, rather split them up into smaller, behaviour centric interfaces. Dependency Inversion Principle – There are two parts to this principle: High-level modules should not depend on low-level modules. Both should depend on abstractions. Abstractions should not depend on details. Details should depend on abstractions. In modern development, this is often handled by an IoC (Inversion of Control) container.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns for Agent / Actor based concurrent design.

    - by nso1
    Recently i have been getting into alternative languages that support an actor/agent/shared nothing architecture - ie. scala, clojure etc (clojure also supports shared state). So far most of the documentation that I have read focus around the intro level. What I am looking for is more advanced documentation along the gang of four but instead shared nothing based. Why ? It helps to grok the change in design thinking. Simple examples are easy, but in a real world java application (single threaded) you can have object graphs with 1000's of members with complex relationships. But with agent based concurrency development it introduces a whole new set of ideas to comprehend when designing large systems. ie. Agent granularity - how much state should one agent manage - implications on performance etc or are their good patterns for mapping shared state object graphs to agent based system. tips on mapping domain models to design. Discussions not on the technology but more on how to BEST use the technology in design (real world "complex" examples would be great).

    Read the article

  • N-Tiered application design tool

    - by Ben V
    I'm beginning the design of a medium-sized web application. I usually like to design from the top down, i.e., start at the highest level and design my way down. I am planning to have the following layers: Presentation (PHP/Ajax) Business Logic Data Access Database Now I'd like to start sketching out the major objects in each layer and the interaction between layers. Is there a tool more specific to this purpose than just using a graphics/diagramming tool like Visio?

    Read the article

  • General Overview of Design Pattern Types

    Typically most software engineering design patterns fall into one of three categories in regards to types. Three types of software design patterns include: Creational Type Patterns Structural Type Patterns Behavioral Type Patterns The Creational Pattern type is geared toward defining the preferred methods for creating new instances of objects. An example of this type is the Singleton Pattern. The Singleton Pattern can be used if an application only needs one instance of a class. In addition, this singular instance also needs to be accessible across an application. The benefit of the Singleton Pattern is that you control both instantiation and access using this pattern. The Structural Pattern type is a way to describe the hierarchy of objects and classes so that they can be consolidated into a larger structure. An example of this type is the Façade Pattern.  The Façade Pattern is used to define a base interface so that all other interfaces inherit from the parent interface. This can be used to simplify a number of similar object interactions into one single standard interface. The Behavioral Pattern Type deals with communication between objects. An example of this type is the State Design Pattern. The State Design Pattern enables objects to alter functionality and processing based on the internal state of the object at a given time.

    Read the article

  • CIC 2010 - Ghost Stories and Model Based Design

    - by warren.baird
    I was lucky enough to attend the collaboration and interoperability congress recently. The location was very beautiful and interesting, it was held in the mountains about two hours outside Denver, at the Stanley hotel, famous both for inspiring Steven King's novel "The Shining" and for attracting a lot of attention from the "Ghost Hunters" TV show. My visit was prosaic - I didn't get to experience the ghosts the locals promised - but interesting, with some very informative sessions. I noticed one main theme - a lot of people were talking about Model Based Design (MBD), which is moving design and manufacturing away from 2d drawings and towards 3d models. 2d has some pretty deep roots in industrial manufacturing and there have been a lot of challenges encountered in making the leap to 3d. One of the challenges discussed in several sessions was how to get model information out to the non-engineers in the company, which is a topic near and dear to my heart. In the 2D space, people without access to CAD software (for example, people assembling a product on the shop floor) can be given printouts of the design - it's not particularly efficient, and it definitely isn't very green, but it tends to work. There's no direct equivalent in the 3D space. One of the ways that AutoVue is used in industrial manufacturing is to provide non-CAD users with an easy to use, interactive 3D view of their products - in some cases it's directly used by people on the shop floor, but in cases where paper is really ingrained in the process, AutoVue can be used by a technical publications person to create illustrative 2D views that can be printed that show all of the details necessary to complete the work. Are you making the move to model based design? Is AutoVue helping you with your challenges? Let us know in the comments below.

    Read the article

  • Design for XML mapping scenarios between two different systems [on hold]

    - by deepak_prn
    Mapping XML fields between two systems is a mundane routine in integration scenarios. I am trying to make the design documents look better and provide clear understanding to the developers especially when we do not use XSLT or any other IDE such as jDeveloper or eclipse plugins. I want it to be a high level design but at the same time talk in developer's language. So that there is no requirements that slip under the crack. For example, one of the scenarios goes: the store cashier sells an item, the transaction data is sent to Data management system. Now, I am writing a functional design for the scenario which deals with mapping XML fields between our system and the data management system. Question : I was wondering if some one had to deal with mapping XML fields between two systems? (without XSLT being involved) and if you used a table to represent the fields mapping (example is below) or any other visualization tool which does not break the bank ? I am trying to find out if there is a better way to represent XML mapping in your design documents. The widely accepted and used method seems to be using a simple table such as in the picture to illustrate the mapping. I am wondering if there are alternate ways/ tools to represent such as in Altova:

    Read the article

  • How to design good & continuous tiles

    - by Mikalichov
    I have trouble designing tiles so that when assembled, they don't look like tiles, but look like an homogeneous thing. For example on the image below: even though the main part of the grass is only one tile, you don't "see" the grid; you know where it is if you look a bit carefully, but it is not obvious. Whereas when I design tiles, you can only see "oh, jeez, 64 times the same tile". A bit like on that image: (taken from a gamedev.stackexchange question, sorry; no critic about the game, but it proves my point, and actually has better tile design that what I manage) I think the main problem is that I design them so they are independent, there is no junction between two tiles if put closed to each other. I think having the tiles more "continuous" would have a smoother effect, but can't manage to do it, it seems overly complex to me. I think it is probably simpler than I think once you know how to do it, but couldn't find a tutorial on that specific point. Is there a known method to design continuous / homogeneous tiles? (my terminology might be totally wrong, don't hesitate to correct me)

    Read the article

  • How can I design good continuous (seamless) tiles?

    - by Mikalichov
    I have trouble designing tiles so that when assembled, they don't look like tiles, but look like a homogeneous thing. For example, see the image below: Even though the main part of the grass is only one tile, you don't "see" the grid; you know where it is if you look a bit carefully, but it is not obvious. Whereas when I design tiles, you can only see "oh, jeez, 64 times the same tile," like in this image: (I took this from another GDSE question, sorry; not be critical of the game, but it proves my point. And actually has better tile design that what I manage, anyway.) I think the main problem is that I design them so they are independent, there is no junction between two tiles if put closed to each other. I think having the tiles more "continuous" would have a smoother effect, but can't manage to do it, it seems overly complex to me. I think it is probably simpler than I think once you know how to do it, but couldn't find a tutorial on that specific point. Is there a known method to design continuous / homogeneous tiles? (My terminology might be totally wrong, don't hesitate to correct me.)

    Read the article

  • Learning good OOP design & unlearning some bad habits

    - by Nick
    I have been mostly a C programmer so far in my career with knowledge of C++. I rely on C++ mostly for the convenience STL provides and I hardly ever focus on good design practices. As I have started to look for a new job position, this bad habit of mine has come back to haunt me. During the interviews, I have been asked to design a problem (like chess, or some other scenario) using OOP and I doing really badly at that (I came to know this through feedback from one interview). I tried to google stuff and came up with so many opinions and related books that I don't know where to begin. I need a good through introduction to OOP design with which I can learn practical design, not just theory. Can you point me to any book which meets my requirements ? I prefer C++, but any other language is fine as long as I can pick-up good practices. Also, I know that books can only go so far. I would also appreciate any good practice project ideas that helped you learn and improve your OOP concepts. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Learn Behavior-Driven Development

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this presentation, I provided a brief introduction into TDD and talked about the confusion and misconceptions around the discipline. I, of course, shared a bit about Dan North, the father of BDD and touched upon some crazy hypothesis dreamed up by Sapir and Whorf. I then gave a Behavior Driven Development overview (my impressions of the implementation and lifecycle) and then touched upon available tools, how to get started and I threw in a number of reference and reading materials which you will find below. As an added bonus, I demonstrated how easy it is to include/exclude hyphens and alter the spelling of “behavior” at will.   Introducing BDD, Dan North Oredev 2007 – Behaviour-Driven Development, Dan North Behavior-Driven Development, Scott Bellware Behavior Driven Development, Wikipedia BDD Wiki A New Look at Test-Driven Development, Dave Astels Behavior Driven Development – An Evolution in Testing, Bob Cotton The Truth about BDD, Uncle Bob Martin Language and Thought, Wikipedia Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, Wikipedia What’s in a Story?, Dan North

    Read the article

  • Level Design V.S. Modeler

    - by Ecurbed
    From what I understand being a level designer and a character/environment/object/etc Modeler are two different jobs, yet sometimes it feels like a Modeler can also do the job of the level designer. I know this also depends on the scale of the game. For small games maybe they are one and the same, but for bigger games they become two different jobs. I understand a background in some modeling could not hurt when it comes to level design, but the question I have is: Do jobs prefer people who can model for level designing? This way they can kill two birds with one stone and have someone to create the assets and design the level. What is your opinion of the training? Does level design contain skill sets that make them completely different from what a modeler can do, or is this an easy transition for a modeler to become a level designer? Can you be a bad level designer but a good modeler and vice versa?

    Read the article

  • How to design network protocols

    - by dandroid
    As a programmer, you work on your software design skills. You learn about things such as modularity and reusability and how you can achieve them in code. There's plenty of literature on the subject and engineers talk about it all the time. What about if you want to design network protocols? How do you judge that protocol X is badly designed while Y is well designed? (eg. in programming you are often pointed out to a well-written piece of code in order to learn from it - what is the equivalent for network protocols?) For example, suppose I want to design a P2P protocol similar to BitTorrent or I want to make a better version of the Socks protocol. How would I go about doing a good job on this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Green Website Design

    - by Christofian
    This is kindove a strange question, but... There was a site called Blackle ( http://www.blackle.com/) which "claimed" to save energy by using a black background (it doesn't: see here: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4373/how-much-energy-does-displaying-a-webpage-with-a-black-background-actually-save). However, blackle and it's idea of "green website design" interested me, and I was wondering if there are any ways to design an energy saving website that actually save energy. If anyone knows of any, please post them here. If nobody has any, then I guess there isn't a way to save energy through website design...

    Read the article

  • Advice about a website design [closed]

    - by Dimitri
    I am web developer newbie. It doesn't mean that I don't know html/css/javascript but I am not good for web design. I am making a website for friend about a barber shop but I am not totally happy of my work due to lack of design. I would like to have some advice about the website and how can I improve the design? The website is in french because i am french. Here is the website : http://afrostyle92.fr/.

    Read the article

  • Custom Logo Design - or - Free Logo Design

    When you search the web, you will be able to find unlimited companies and websites offering free services. Even though they brag about providing quality products, but you can never be sure how useful... [Author: Sha Amen - Web Design and Development - May 07, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Right multi object dependance design

    - by kenny
    I need some help with a correct design. I have a class called BufferManager. The push() method of this class reads data from a source and pushes it to a buffer repeatedly until there is no more data left in the source. There are also consumer threads that read data from this buffer, as soon as new data arrives. There is an option to sort the data before it comes to buffer. What I do right now is that BufferManager, instead of pushing data to the buffer, pushes it to another "sorting" buffer and starts a sorting thread. SorterManager class reads the data, sorts it in files and push()es the sorted data into the buffer. There will be a bottleneck (I use merge sort with files) but this is something I can't avoid. This is a bad design, because both BufferManager and SorterManager push data to a buffer (that consumers read from). I think only BufferManager should do it. How can I design it?

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture - From design to sucessful implementation

    - by user20358
    As the subject goes; once a software architect puts down the high level design and approach to a software that is to be developed from scratch, how does the team ensure that it is implemented successfully? To my mind the following things will need to be done Proper understanding of requirements Setting down coding practices and guidelines Regular code reviews to ensure the guidelines are being adhered to Revisiting the requirements phase and making necessary changes to design based on client inputs if there are any changes to requirements Proper documentation of what is being done in code Proper documentation of requirements and changes to them Last but not the least, implementing the design via object oriented code where appropriate Did I miss anything? Would love to hear any mistakes that you have learned from in your project experiences. What went wrong, what could have been done better. Thanks for taking the time..

    Read the article

  • SSIS Design Pattern: Producing a Footer Row

    - by andyleonard
    The following is an excerpt from SSIS Design Patterns (now available in the UK!) Chapter 7, Flat File Source Patterns. The only planned appearance of all five authors presenting on SSIS Design Patterns is the SSIS Design Patterns day-long pre-conference session at the PASS Summit 2012 . Register today . Let’s look at producing a footer row and adding it to the data file. For this pattern, we will leverage project and package parameters. We will also leverage the Parent-Child pattern, which will be...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >