Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 74/170 | < Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >

  • Protocol specification in XML

    - by Mathijs
    Is there a way to specify a packet-based protocol in XML, so (de)serialization can happen automatically? The context is as follows. I have a device that communicates through a serial port. It sends and receives a byte stream consisting of 'packets'. A packet is a collection of elementary data types and (sometimes) other packets. Some elements of packets are conditional; their inclusion depends on earlier elements. I have a C# application that communicates with this device. Naturally, I don't want to work on a byte-level throughout my application; I want to separate the protocol from my application code. Therefore I need to translate the byte stream to structures (classes). Currently I have implemented the protocol in C# by defining a class for each packet. These classes define the order and type of elements for each packet. Making class members conditional is difficult, so protocol information ends up in functions. I imagine XML that looks like this (note that my experience designing XML is limited): <packet> <field name="Author" type="int32" /> <field name="Nickname" type="bytes" size="4"> <condition type="range"> <field>Author</field> <min>3</min> <max>6</min> </condition> </field> </packet> .NET has something called a 'binary serializer', but I don't think that's what I'm looking for. Is there a way to separate protocol and code, even if packets 'include' other packets and have conditional elements?

    Read the article

  • how to make objects globally accessible?

    - by fayer
    i have this code: class IC_Core { /** * Database * @var IC_Database */ public static $db = NULL; /** * Core * @var IC_Core */ protected static $_instance = NULL; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance() { if ( ! is_object(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance = new self(); self::initialize(self::$_instance); } return self::$_instance; } private static function initialize(IC_Core $IC_Core) { self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); } } but when i wanna access IC_Database with: $IC = IC_Core::getInstance(); $IC->db->add() // it says that its not an object. i think the problem lies in self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); but i dont know how to make it work. could someone give me a hand=) thanks!

    Read the article

  • Which pattern to use for logging? Dependency Injection or Service Locator?

    - by andlju
    Consider this scenario. I have some business logic that now and then will be required to write to a log. interface ILogger { void Log(string stuff); } interface IDependency { string GetInfo(); } class MyBusinessObject { private IDependency _dependency; public MyBusinessObject(IDependency dependency) { _dependency = dependency; } public string DoSomething(string input) { // Process input var info = _dependency.GetInfo(); var intermediateResult = PerformInterestingStuff(input, info); if (intermediateResult== "SomethingWeNeedToLog") { // How do I get to the ILogger-interface? } var result = PerformSomethingElse(intermediateResult); return result; } } How would you get the ILogger interface? I see two main possibilities; Pass it using Dependency Injection on the constructor. Get it via a singleton Service Locator. Which method would you prefer, and why? Or is there an even better pattern? Update: Note that I don't need to log ALL method calls. I only want to log a few (rare) events that may or may not occur within my method.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a live voting system

    - by Will Eddins
    I'm looking at implementing a live voting system on my website. The website provides a live stream, and I'd like to be able to prompt viewers to select an answer during a vote initiated by the caster. I can understand how to store the data in a mySQL database, and how to process the answers. However: How would I initially start the vote on the client-side and display it? Should a script be running every few seconds on the page, checking another page to see if a question is available for the user? Are there any existing examples of a real-time polling system such as what I'm looking at implementing?

    Read the article

  • Question about a possible design pattern...

    - by Aftershock
    I have such a design in my mind.... My aim is to reuse the program with some features included and without some features. What is it called in the literature? class feature1 { void feature1function1(); void feature1function2(); } class feature2 { void feature2function1(); void feature2function2(); } class program: feature1, feature2 { void function1() { feature2function1(); } void function2() { feature1function1(); feature2function1(); } void execute() { function1(); function2(); } }

    Read the article

  • Using an embedded DB (SQLite / SQL Compact) for Message Passing within an app?

    - by wk1989
    Hello, Just out of curiosity, for applications that have a fairly complicated module tree, would something like sqlite/sql compact edition work well for message passing? So if I have modules containing data such as: \SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC, \SubSystemB\SubSubSystemC\ModuleA\ModuleDataX Using traditional message passing/routing, you have to go through intermediate modules in order to pass a message to ModuleB to request say ModuleDataC. Instead of doing that, if we we simply store "\SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC" in a sqlite database, getting that data is as simple as a sql query and needs no routing and passing stuff around. Has anyone done this before? Even if you haven't, do you foresee any issues & performance impact? The only concern I have right now would be the passing of custom types, e.g. if ModuleDataC is a custom data structure or a pointer, I'll need some way of storing the data structure into the DB or storing the pointer into the DB. Thanks, JW EDIT One usage case I haven't thought about is when you want to send a message from ModuleA to ModuleB to get ModuleB to do something rather than just getting/setting data. Is it possible to do this using an embedded DB? I believe callback from the DB would be needed, how feasible is this?

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Searching for the right pattern to handle login data

    - by stevebot
    Hi all, I'm working on a controller that handles logins for a Web app. These logins will come from multiple clients but will all contain the same data. However, depending on the client, this data will be interpreted into common entities for our webapp differently. For instance, we have a user code that gets sent in, and in one case we may use the first four digits of the code, and in another case 12 digits of the code to map to a field on a User entity. Instead of handling this all in the controller and having big nasty if blocks of logic, I would like to use a pattern to handle how this information gets ingested into our application. What are your opinions?

    Read the article

  • Should I use a modified singleton design pattern that only allows one reference to its instance?

    - by Graham
    Hi, I have a class that would normally just generate factory objects, however this class should only used once throughout the program in once specifix place. What is the best design pattern to use in this instance? I throught that having a modified singleton design which only allows one reference to instance throughout the program would be the correct way to go. So only the first call to getInstance() returns the factory library. Is this a good or bad idea? Have I missed out another fundermental design pattern for solving this problem? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Repository Pattern Standardization of methods

    - by Nix
    All I am trying to find out the correct definition of the repository pattern. My original understanding was this (extremely dubmed down) Separate your Business Objects from your Data Objects Standardize access methods in data access layer. I have really seen 2 different implementations. Implementation 1 : public Interface IRepository<T>{ List<T> GetAll(); void Create(T p); void Update(T p); } public interface IProductRepository: IRepository<Product> { //Extension methods if needed List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Implementation 2 : public interface IProductRepository { List<Product> GetAllProducts(); void CreateProduct(Product p); void UpdateProduct(Product p); List<Product> GetProductsByCustomerID(); } Notice the first is generic Get/Update/GetAll, etc, the second is more of what I would define "DAO" like. Both share an extraction from your data entities. Which I like, but i can do the same with a simple DAO. However the second piece standardize access operations I see value in, if you implement this enterprise wide people would easily know the set of access methods for your repository. Am I wrong to assume that the standardization of access to data is an integral piece of this pattern ? Rhino has a good article on implementation 1, and of course MS has a vague definition and an example of implementation 2 is here.

    Read the article

  • What elegant method callback design should be used ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, I'm surprised this question wasn't asked before on SO (well, at least I couldn't find it). Have you ever designed a method-callback pattern (something like a "pointer" to a class method) in C++ and, if so, how did you do it ? I know a method is just a regular function with some hidden this parameter to serve as a context and I have a pretty simple design in mind. However, since things are often more complex than they seem to, I wonder how our C++ gurus would implement this, preferably in an elegant and standard way. All suggestions are welcome !

    Read the article

  • In Java how instance of and type cast(i.e (ClassName)) works on proxy object ?

    - by learner
    Java generates a proxy class for a given interface and provides the instance of the proxy class. But when we type cast the proxy object to our specific Object, how java handles this internally? Is this treated as special scenario? For example I have class 'OriginalClass' and it implements 'OriginalInterface', when I create proxy object by passing 'OriginalInterface' interface java created proxy class 'ProxyClass' using methods in the provided interface and provides object of this class(i.e ProxyClass). If my understanding is correct then can you please answer following queries 1) When I type cast object of ProxyClass to my class OriginalClass this works, but how java is allowing this? Same in case of instace of? 2) As my knowledge java creates a proxy class only with the methods, but what happen when I try to access attributes on this object? 3) Only interface methods are getting implemented in Proxy, but what happens when I try to access a method which not in interface and only mentioned in the class? Thanks, Student

    Read the article

  • Is Domain Anaemia appropriate in a Service Oriented Architecture?

    - by Stimul8d
    I want to be clear on this. When I say domain anaemia, I mean intentional domain anaemia, not accidental. In a world where most of our business logic is hidden away behind a bunch of services, is a full domain model really necessary? This is the question I've had to ask myself recently since working on a project where the "domain" model is in reality a persistence model; none of the domain objects contain any methods and this is a very intentional decision. Initially, I shuddered when I saw a library full of what are essentially type-safe data containers but after some thought it struck me that this particular system doesn't do much but basic CRUD operations, so maybe in this case this is a good choice. My problem I guess is that my experience so far has been very much focussed on a rich domain model so it threw me a little. The remainder of the domain logic is hidden away in a group of helpers, facades and factories which live in a separate assembly. I'm keen to hear what people's thoughts are on this. Obviously, the considerations for reuse of these classes are much simpler but is really that great a benefit?

    Read the article

  • command design pattern usage

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

    Read the article

  • Function chaining depending on boolean result

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

    Read the article

  • Should I dive into ASP.NET MVC or start with ASP.NET Webforms?

    - by Sahat
    I plan to pick up Silverlight in the future. Possibility of going into Microsoft WPF. Currently learning Objective-C 2.0 w/ Cocoa. I already know Pros and Cons of ASP.NET MVC vs ASP.NET Webforms. What I want to know is what would be more "efficient" for me to learn given the circumstances above? By efficient I mean learning one design pattern once and then re-using it. Objective-C I believe uses MVC approach? What about Silverlight? WPF? So what do you think? Also as a side question is it true that ASP.NET Webforms is often used by freelancers/small companies and ASP.NET MVC in large enterprises?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Connecting data to a GUI - OOP

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

    Read the article

  • Is this a problem typically solved with IOC?

    - by Dirk
    My current application allows users to define custom web forms through a set of admin screens. it's essentially an EAV type application. As such, I can't hard code HTML or ASP.NET markup to render a given page. Instead, the UI requests an instance of a Form object from the service layer, which in turn constructs one using a several RDMBS tables. Form contains the kind of classes you would expect to see in such a context: Form= IEnumerable<FormSections>=IEnumerable<FormFields> Here's what the service layer looks like: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenForm(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } } Everything works splendidly (for a while). The UI is none the wiser about what sections/fields exist in a given form: It happily renders the Form object it receives into a functional ASP.NET page. A few weeks later, I get a new requirement from the business: When viewing a non-editable (i.e. read-only) versions of a form, certain field values should be merged together and other contrived/calculated fields should are added. No problem I say. Simply amend my service class so that its methods are more explicit: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId){ //construct and a concrete implementation of Form //apply additional transformations to the form } } Again everything works great and balance has been restored to the force. The UI continues to be agnostic as to what is in the Form, and our separation of concerns is achieved. Only a few short weeks later, however, the business puts out a new requirement: in certain scenarios, we should apply only some of the form transformations I referenced above. At this point, it feels like the "explicit method" approach has reached a dead end, unless I want to end up with an explosion of methods (OpenFormViewingScenario1, OpenFormViewingScenario2, etc). Instead, I introduce another level of indirection: public interface IFormViewCreator{ void CreateView(Form form); } public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId, IFormViewCreator formViewCreator){ //construct a concrete implementation of Form //apply transformations to the dynamic field list return formViewCreator.CreateView(form); } } On the surface, this seems like acceptable approach and yet there is a certain smell. Namely, the UI, which had been living in ignorant bliss about the implementation details of OpenFormForViewing, must possess knowledge of and create an instance of IFormViewCreator. My questions are twofold: Is there a better way to achieve the composability I'm after? (perhaps by using an IoC container or a home rolled factory to create the concrete IFormViewCreator)? Did I fundamentally screw up the abstraction here?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81  | Next Page >