Search Results

Search found 5751 results on 231 pages for 'analysis patterns'.

Page 72/231 | < Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >

  • Parent child class relationship design pattern

    - by Jeremy
    I have a class which has a list of child items. Is there a design pattern I can copy that I can apply to these classes so that I can access the parent instance from the child, and it enforces rules such as not being able to add the child to multiple parents, etc?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

    - by Andy
    I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

    Read the article

  • Objective-c design advice for use of different data sources, swapping between test and live

    - by user200341
    I'm in the process of designing an application that is part of a larger piece of work, depending on other people to build an API that the app can make use of to retrieve data. While I was thinking about how to setup this project and design the architecture around it, something occurred to me, and I'm sure many people have been in similar situations. Since my work is depending on other people to complete their tasks, and a test server, this slows work down at my end. So the question is: What's the best practice for creating test repositories and classes, implementing them, and not having to depend on altering several places in the code to swap between the test classes and the actual repositories / proper api calls. Contemplate the following scenario: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [[GetDataFromApiCommand alloc]init]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; Once the data is available via the API, "GetDataFromApiCommand" could use the actual API, but until then a set of mock data could be returned upon the call of [getDataCommand getData] There might be multiple instances of this, in various places in the code, so replacing all of them wherever they are, is a slow and painful process which inevitably leads to one or two being overlooked. In strongly typed languages we could use dependency injection and just alter one place. In objective-c a factory pattern could be implemented, but is that the best route to go for this? GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [GetDataFromApiCommandFactory buildGetDataFromApiCommand]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; What is the best practices to achieve this result? Since this would be most useful, even if you have the actual API available, to run tests, or work off-line, the ApiCommands would not necessarily have to be replaced permanently, but the option to select "Do I want to use TestApiCommand or ApiCommand". It is more interesting to have the option to switch between: All commands are test and All command use the live API, rather than selecting them one by one, however that would also be useful to do for testing one or two actual API commands, mixing them with test data. EDIT The way I have chosen to go with this is to use the factory pattern. I set up the factory as follows: @implementation ApiCommandFactory + (ApiCommand *)newApiCommand { // return [[ApiCommand alloc]init]; return [[ApiCommandMock alloc]init]; } @end And anywhere I want to use the ApiCommand class: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [ApiCommandFactory newApiCommand]; When the actual API call is required, the comments can be removed and the mock can be commented out. Using new in the message name implies that who ever uses the factory to get an object, is responsible for releasing it (since we want to avoid autorelease on the iPhone). If additional parameters are required, the factory needs to take these into consideration i.e: [ApiCommandFactory newSecondApiCommand:@"param1"]; This will work quite well with repositories as well.

    Read the article

  • Lackadaisical One-to-One between Char and Byte Streams

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I expected to have a one-to-one correspondence between the character streams and byte streams in terms of how the classes are organized in their hierarchy. FilterReader and FilterWriter (character streams) correspond back to FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream (byte stream) classes. However I noticed few changes as - BufferedInputStream extends FilterInputStream, but BufferedReader does NOT extend FilterReader. BufferedOutputStream and PrintStream both extend FilterOutputStream, but BufferedWriter and PrintWriter does NOT extend FilterWriter. FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream are not abstract classes, but FilterReader and FilterWriter are. I am not sure if I am being too paranoid to point out such differences, but was just curious to know if there was design reasoning behind such decision.

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Pattern - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demonstrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How can I make a family of singletons?

    - by Jay
    I want to create a set of classes that share a lot of common behavior. Of course in OOP when you think that you automatically think "abstract class with subclasses". But among the things I want these classes to do is to each have a static list of instances of the class. The list should function as sort of a singleton within the class. I mean each of the sub-classes has a singleton, not that they share one. "Singleton" to that subclass, not a true singleton. But if it's a static, how can I inherit it? Of course code like this won't work: public abstract A { static List<A> myList; public static List getList() { if (myList==null) myList=new ArrayList<A>(10); return myList; } public static A getSomethingFromList() { List listInstance=getList(); ... do stuff with list ... } public int getSomethingFromA() { ... regular code acting against current instance ... } } public class A1 extends A { ... } public class A2 extends A { ... } A1 somethingfromA1List=(A1) A1.getSomethingFromList(); A2 somethingfromA2List=(A2) A2.getSomethingFromList(); The contents of the list for each subclass would be different, but all the code to work on the lists would be the same. The problem with the above code is that I'd only have one list for all the subclasses, and I want one for each. Yes, I could replicate the code to declare the static list in each of the subclasses, but then I'd also have to replicate all the code that adds to the lists and searches the list, etc, which rather defeats the purpose of subclassing. Any ideas on how to do this without replicating code?

    Read the article

  • what happens to running/blocked runnables when executorservice is shutdown()

    - by prmatta
    I posted a question about a thread pattern today, and almost everyone suggested that I look into the ExecutorService. While I was looking into the ExecutorService, I think I am missing something. What happens if the service has a running or blocked threads, and someone calls ExecutorService.shutdown(). What happens to threads that are running or blocked? Does the ExecutorService wait for those threads to complete before it terminates? The reason I ask this is because a long time ago when I used to dabble in Java, they deprecated Thread.stop(), and I remember the right way of stopping a thread was to use sempahores and extend Thread when necessary: public void run () { while (!this.exit) { try { block(); //do something } catch (InterruptedException ie) { } } } public void stop () { this.exit = true; if (this.thread != null) { this.thread.interrupt(); this.thread = null; } } How does ExecutorService handle running threads?

    Read the article

  • Best approach to design a service oriented system

    - by Gustavo Paulillo
    Thinking about service orientation, our team are involved on new application designs. We consist in a group of 4 developers and a manager (that knows something about programming and distributed systems). Each one, having own opinion on service design. It consists in a distributed system: a user interface (web app) accessing the services in a dedicated server (inside the firewall), to obtain the business logic operations. So we got 2 main approachs that I list above : Modular services Having many modules, each one consisting of a service (WCF). Example: namespaces SystemX.DebtService, SystemX.CreditService, SystemX.SimulatorService Unique service All the business logic is centralized in a unique service. Example: SystemX.OperationService. The web app calls the same service for all operations. In your opinion, whats the best? Or having another approach is better for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • asp.mvc model design

    - by Radu D
    Hi, I am pretty new to MVC and I am looking for a way to design my models. I have the MVC web site project and another class library that takes care of data access and constructing the business objects. If I have in that assembly a class named Project that is a business object and I need to display all projects in a view ... should I make another model class Project? In this case the classes will be identical. Do I gain something from doing a new model class? I don't like having in views references to objects from another dll ... but i don't like duplicating the code neither. Did you encounter the same problem?

    Read the article

  • What design pattern shall I use in this question?

    - by iyad al aqel
    To be frank, this is a homework question, so I'll tell you my opinion. Can you let me know my mistakes rather than giving me the solution? This is the question : Assume a restaurant that only offers the following two types of meals: (a) a full meal and (b)an economic meal. The full meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Appetizer 2. Drink 3. Main dish 4. Dessert Meanwhile the economic meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Drink 2. Main dish Identify the most appropriate design pattern that can be used to allow a customer to only order using one of the two types of meals provided and that the meal components must be served in the given order. I'm confused between the Factory and the Iterator and using them both together. Using the factory Pattern we can create the two meals full and economic and provide the user with with a base object class that will decide upon. But how can we enforce the ordering of the elements, I thought of using the iterator along that will iterate through the the composite of the two created factories sort of speak. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Meta Search Engine Architecture

    - by Loki
    The question wasn't clear enough, I think; here's an updated straight to the point question: What are the common architectures used in building a meta search engine and is there any libraries available to build that type of search engine? I'm looking at building an "enterprise" type of search engine where the indexed data could be coming from proprietary (like Autonomy or a Google Box) or public search engines (like Google Web or Yahoo Web).

    Read the article

  • StockTrader RI > Controllers, Presenters, WTF?

    - by SandRock
    I am currently learning how to make advanced usage of WPF via the Prism (Composite WPF) project. I watch many videos and examples and the demo application StockTraderRI makes me ask this question: What is the exact role of each of the following part? SomethingService: Ok, this is something to manage data SomethingView: Ok, this is what's displayed SomethingPresentationModel: Ok, this contains data and commands for the view to bind to (equivalent to a ViewModel). SomethingPresenter: I don't really understand it's usage SomethingController: Don't understand too I saw that a Presenter and a Controller are not necessary but I would like to understand why they are here. Can someone tell me their role and when to use them?

    Read the article

  • Design for a Debate club assignment application

    - by Amir Rachum
    Hi all, For my university's debate club, I was asked to create an application to assign debate sessions and I'm having some difficulties as to come up with a good design for it. I will do it in Java. Here's what's needed: What you need to know about BP debates: There are four teams of 2 debaters each and a judge. The four groups are assigned a specific position: gov1, gov2, op1, op2. There is no significance to the order within a team. The goal of the application is to get as input the debaters who are present (for example, if there are 20 people, we will hold 2 debates) and assign them to teams and roles with regards to the history of each debater so that: Each debater should debate with (be on the same team) as many people as possible. Each debater should uniformly debate in different positions. The debate should be fair - debaters have different levels of experience and this should be as even as possible - i.e., there shouldn't be a team of two very experienced debaters and a team of junior debaters. There should be an option for the user to restrict the assignment in various ways, such as: Specifying that two people should debate together, in a specific position or not. Specifying that a single debater should be in a specific position, regardless of the partner. etc... If anyone can try to give me some pointers for a design for this application, I'll be so thankful! Also, I've never implemented a GUI before, so I'd appreciate some pointers on that as well, but it's not the major issue right now.

    Read the article

  • Naming remote proxy classes

    - by Tobbe
    What are some good names for the client and server side classes that communicate over the network when implementing a remote proxy? The classes are often called stub and skelleton but I don't find those names very "intention revealing". Are there any other (better) alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Should I use the Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM) pattern in Silverlight projects?

    - by Jon Galloway
    One challenge with Silverlight controls is that when properties are bound to code, they're no longer really editable in Blend. For example, if you've got a ListView that's populated from a data feed, there are no elements visible when you edit the control in Blend. I've heard that the MVVM pattern, originated by the WPF development community, can also help with keeping Silverlight controls "blendable". I'm still wrapping my head around it, but here are some explanations: http://www.nikhilk.net/Silverlight-ViewModel-Pattern.aspx http://mark-dot-net.blogspot.com/2008/11/model-view-view-model-mvvm-in.html http://www.ryankeeter.com/silverlight/silverlight-mvvm-pt-1-hello-world-style/ http://jonas.follesoe.no/YouCardRevisitedImplementingTheViewModelPattern.aspx One potential downside is that the pattern requires additional classes, although not necessarily more code (as shown by the second link above). Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for UI configuration

    - by TERACytE
    I have a Win32 C++ program that validates user input and updates the UI with status information and options. Currently it is written like this: void ShowError() { SetIcon(kError); SetMessageString("There was an error"); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } void ShowSuccess() { SetIcon(kError); std::String statusText (GetStatusText()); SetMessageString(statusText); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } // plus several more methods to update the UI using similar mechanisms I do not likes this because it duplicates code and causes me to update several methods if something changes in the UI. I am wondering if there is a design pattern or best practice to remove the duplication and make the functionality easier to understand and update. I could consolidate the code inside a config function and pass in flags to enable/disable UI items, but I am not convinced this is the best approach. Any suggestions and ideas?

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • Expose subset of a class - design question

    - by thanikkal
    Suppose i have a product class with about close to 100 properties. Now for some operations (Say tax calculation) i dont really need this bulky product type, rather only a subset that has price related properties. I am not sure if i should create different snap shots(class) of products that just has the properties that i am interested in. what would be the ideal approach so that i don't unnecessarily pass around unsought fluff? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Simple but good pattern for EJB

    - by Sara
    What would you suggest as a good and practical but simple pattern for a soloution with: HTML + JSP (as a view/presentation) SERVLETS (controller, request, session-handling) EJB (persistence, businesslogic) MySQL DB And is it necessary to use an own layer of DAO for persistence? I use JPA to persist objects to my DB. Should I withdraw business logic from my EJB? Sources online all tell me different things and confuses me...

    Read the article

  • Calling DI Container directly in method code (MVC Actions)

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    I'm playing with DI (using Unity). I've learned how to do Constructor and Property injection. I have a static container exposed through a property in my Global.asax file (MvcApplication class). I have a need for a number of different objects in my Controller. It doesn't seem right to inject these throught the constructor, partly because of the high quantity of them, and partly because they are only needed in some Actions methods. The question is, is there anything wrong with just calling my container directly from within the Action methods? public ActionResult Foo() { IBar bar = (Bar)MvcApplication.Container.Resolve(IBar); // ... Bar uses a default constructor, I'm not actually doing any // injection here, I'm just telling my conatiner to give me Bar // when I ask for IBar so I can hide the existence of the concrete // Bar from my Controller. } This seems the simplest and most efficient way of doing things, but I've never seen an example used in this way. Is there anything wrong with this? Am I missing the concept in some way?

    Read the article

  • Events and references pattern

    - by serhio
    In a project I have the following relation between BO and GUI By e.g. G could represent a graphic with time lines, C a TimeLine curve, P - points of that curve and T the time that represents each point. Each GUI object is associated with the BO corresponding object. When T changes GUI P captures the Changed event and changes its location. So, when G should be modified, it modifies internally its objects and as result T changes, P moves and the GuiG visually changes, everything is OK. But there is an inconvenient of this architecture... BO should not be recreated, because this will breack the link between BO and GUIO. In particular, GUI P should always have the same reference of T. If in a business logic I do by e.g. P1.T = new T(this.T + 10) GUI_P1 will not move anymore, because it wait an event from the reference of former P1.T object, that does not belongs to P1 anymore. So the solution was to always modify the existing objects, not to recreate it. But here is an other inconvenient: performance. Say I have a ready newC object that should replace the older one. Instead of doing G1.C = newC I should do foreach T in foreach P in C replace with T from P from newC. Is there an other more optimal way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Implementing the procducer-consumer with .NET 4.0 new

    - by bitbonk
    With alle the new paralell programming features in .NET 4.0, what would be a a simple and fast way to implement the producer-consumer pattern (where at least one thread is producing and enqueuing task items and one other thread executes (dequeues) these tasks). Can we benfit from all these new APIs? What is your preferred implementation of this pattern?

    Read the article

  • creational pattern for instances depending on multiple subclass instances

    - by markusw
    I have a problem, for that I was not able to identify a suitable design pattern. I want to create instances depending on a given type that has been passed to a factory method. What I am doing until now is the following: T create(SuperType x) { if (x instanceof SubType1) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if (x instanceof SubType2) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if ... } else { throw new UnSupportedOperationException("nothing defined for " + x); } } It seems not to be best pratice for me. Has anybody an idea how to solve this in a better way?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >