Search Results

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

Page 75/231 | < Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >

• MyController class must produce class according to the enum type.

  - by programmerist

  GenoTipController must produce class according to the enum type. i have 3 class: _Company,_Muayene,_Radyoloji. Also i have CompanyView Class GetPersonel method. if you look GenoTipController my codes need refactoring. Can you understand me? i need a class according to ewnum type must me produce class. For example; case DataModelType.Radyoloji it must return radyoloji= new Radyoloji . Everything must be one switch case? public class GenoTipController { public _Company GenerateCompany(DataModelType modeltype) { _Company company = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: company = new Company(); break; default: break; } return company; } public _Muayene GenerateMuayene(DataModelType modeltype) { _Muayene muayene = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: muayene = new Muayene(); break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return muayene; } public _Radyoloji GenerateRadyoloji(DataModelType modeltype) { _Radyoloji radyoloji = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: radyoloji = new Radyoloji(); break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return radyoloji; } } public class CompanyView { public static List GetPersonel() { GenoTipController controller = new GenoTipController(); _Company company = controller.GenerateCompany(DataModelType.Company); return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { Radyoloji, Satis, Muayene, Company } }

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern for this?

  - by Timmy

  i have something that requires a matrix of values, similar to pokemon: i have a class object for each of the types, is there a pattern or a good way to implement this, as a middle layer or in the classes?

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern for injecting methods into a class?

  - by glenn I.

  I have a set of classes that work together (I'm coding in javascript). There is one parent class and a number of child classes that are instantiated by the parent class. I have a number of clients of these classes that each need to add on one more methods to the parent or child classes. Rather than having each client inherit from these classes, which is doable but messy because of the child classes, I am having these clients pass functions into the parent class when they instantiate the main class. The main class creates the methods dynamically and the clients can call the methods like they were there all along. My questions are: is this a sensible thing to do? what would the design pattern be for what I am doing?

  Read the article

• How does the Repository Pattern relate to the Business Logic Layer? [closed]

  - by Mustafa Dingil

  Should the Repository Pattern, as used in the context of Domain-driven design (DDD), be implemented within the business logic layer of an application? Or should it be part of the data access layer and just consumed by the business logic layer in turn?

  Read the article

• Question about factory classes

  - by devoured elysium

  Currently I have created a ABCFactory class that has a single method creating ABC objects. Now that I think of it, maybe instead of having a factory, I could just make a static method in my ABC Method. What are the pro's and con's on making this change? Will it not lead to the same? I don't foresee having other classes inherit ABC, but one never knows! Thanks

  Read the article

• Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

  - by devoured elysium

  Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

  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

• Which is the better C# class design for dealing with read+write versus readonly

  - by DanM

  I'm contemplating two different class designs for handling a situation where some repositories are read-only while others are read-write. (I don't foresee any need to a write-only repository.) Class Design 1 -- provide all functionality in a base class, then expose applicable functionality publicly in sub classes public abstract class RepositoryBase { protected virtual void SelectBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void InsertBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void UpdateBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void DeleteBase() { // implementation... } } public class ReadOnlyRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } } public class ReadWriteRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } public void Insert() { InsertBase(); } public void Update() { UpdateBase(); } public void Delete() { DeleteBase(); } } Class Design 2 - read-write class inherits from read-only class public class ReadOnlyRepository { public void Select() { // implementation... } } public class ReadWriteRepository : ReadOnlyRepository { public void Insert() { // implementation... } public void Update() { // implementation... } public void Delete() { // implementation... } } Is one of these designs clearly stronger than the other? If so, which one and why? P.S. If this sounds like a homework question, it's not, but feel free to use it as one if you want :)

  Read the article

• Are we using IoC effectively?

  - by Juliet

  So my company uses Castle Windsor IoC container, but in a way that feels "off": All the data types are registered in code, not the config file. All data types are hard-coded to use one interface implementation. In fact, for nearly all given interfaces, there is and will only ever be one implementation. All registered data types have a default constructor, so Windsor doesn't instantiate an object graph for any registered types. The people who designed the system insist the IoC container makes the system better. We have 1200+ public classes, so its a big system, the kind where you'd expect to find a framework like Windsor. But I'm still skeptical. Is my company using IoC effectively? Is there an advantage to new'ing objects with Windsor than new'ing objects with the new keyword?

  Read the article

• how can i use switch statement on type-safe enum pattern

  - by Fer

  I found a goodlooking example about implementation enums in a different way. That is called type-safe enum pattern i think. I started using it but i realized that i can not use it in a switch statement. My implementation looks like the following: public sealed class MyState { private readonly string m_Name; private readonly int m_Value; public static readonly MyState PASSED= new MyState(1, "OK"); public static readonly MyState FAILED= new MyState(2, "ERROR"); private MyState(int value, string name) { m_Name = name; m_Value = value; } public override string ToString() { return m_Name; } public int GetIntValue() { return m_Value; } } What can i add to my class in order to be able to use this pattern in switch statements in C#? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Applying the Decorator Pattern to Forms

  - by devoured elysium

  I am trying to apply the Decorator Design Pattern to the following situation: I have 3 different kind of forms: Green, Yellow, Red. Now, each of those forms can have different set of attributes. They can have a minimize box disabled, a maximized box disabled and they can be always on top. I tried to model this the following way: Form <---------------------------------------FormDecorator /\ /\ |---------|-----------| |----------------------|-----------------| GreenForm YellowForm RedForm MinimizeButtonDisabled MaximizedButtonDisabled AlwaysOnTop Here is my GreenForm code: public class GreenForm : Form { public GreenForm() { this.BackColor = Color.GreenYellow; } public override sealed Color BackColor { get { return base.BackColor; } set { base.BackColor = value; } } } FormDecorator: public abstract class FormDecorator : Form { private Form _decoratorForm; protected FormDecorator(Form decoratorForm) { this._decoratorForm = decoratorForm; } } and finally NoMaximizeDecorator: public class NoMaximizeDecorator : FormDecorator { public NoMaximizeDecorator(Form decoratorForm) : base(decoratorForm) { this.MaximizeBox = false; } } So here is the running code: static void Main() { Application.EnableVisualStyles(); Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(false); Application.Run(CreateForm()); } static Form CreateForm() { Form form = new GreenForm(); form = new NoMaximizeDecorator(form); form = new NoMinimizeDecorator(form); return form; } The problem is that I get a form that isn't green and that still allows me to maximize it. It is only taking in consideration the NoMinimizeDecorator form. I do comprehend why this happens but I'm having trouble understanding how to make this work with this Pattern. I know probably there are better ways of achieving what I want. I made this example as an attempt to apply the Decorator Pattern to something. Maybe this wasn't the best pattern I could have used(if one, at all) to this kind of scenario. Is there any other pattern more suitable than the Decorator to accomplish this? Am I doing something wrong when trying to implement the Decorator Pattern? Thanks

  Read the article

• JavaScript Module Pattern - What about using "return this"?

  - by Rob

  After doing some reading about the Module Pattern, I've seen a few ways of returning the properties which you want to be public. One of the most common ways is to declare your public properties and methods right inside of the "return" statement, apart from your private properties and methods. A similar way (the "Revealing" pattern) is to provide simply references to the properties and methods which you want to be public. Lastly, a third technique I saw was to create a new object inside your module function, to which you assign your new properties before returning said object. This was an interesting idea, but requires the creation of a new object. So I was thinking, why not just use "this.propertyName" to assign your public properties and methods, and finally use "return this" at the end? This way seems much simpler to me, as you can create private properties and methods with the usual "var" or "function" syntax, or use the "this.propertyName" syntax to declare your public methods. Here's the method I'm suggesting: (function() { var privateMethod = function () { alert('This is a private method.'); } this.publicMethod = function () { alert('This is a public method.'); } return this; })(); Are there any pros/cons to using the method above? What about the others?

  Read the article

• Is Abstract Factory Pattern implemented correctly for given scenario.... ???

  - by Amit

  First thing... I am novice to pattern world, so correct me if wrong anywhere Scenario: There are multiple companies providing multiple products of diff size so there are 3 entities i.e. Companies, Their Product and size of product I have implement Abstract Pattern on this i.e. so that I will create instance of IProductFactory interface to get desired product... Is below implementation of Abstract Factory Pattern correct ??? If not then please correct the approach + Also tell me if any other pattern can be used for such scenario Thanks in advance... public enum Companies { Samsung = 0, LG = 1, Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { PlasmaTv = 0, DVD = 1 } public enum ProductSize { FortyTwoInch, FiftyFiveInch } interface IProductFactory { IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct(); ISony GetSonyProduct(); } interface ISony { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } interface IPhilips { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } class ProductFactory : IProductFactory { public IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct() { return new Philips(); } public ISony GetSonyProduct() { return new Sony(); } } class Philips : IPhilips { #region IPhilips Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) {// I have ingnore size for now.... string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } class Sony : ISony {// I have ingnore size for now.... #region ISony Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) { string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } IProductFactory prodFactory = new ProductFactory(); IPhilips philipsObj = prodFactory.GetPhilipsProduct(); MessageBox.Show(philipsObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch)); or //ISony sonyObj = prodFactory.GetSonyProduct(); //MessageBox.Show(sonyObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch));

  Read the article

• Would ViewModels fit in the Model View Presenter pattern?

  - by Jonn

  Having used ViewModels in MVC, I was wondering if applying the same to the MVP pattern is practical. I only have a few considerations, one being that MVP is already fairly hard to implement (with all the additional coding, not much on the seeming complexity) or that ViewModels already have a slightly similar way of modeling data or entities. Would adding another layer in the form of ViewModels be redundant or is it a logical abstraction that I, as one implementing the MVP pattern, should adhere to?

  Read the article

• Should Factories Persist Entities?

  - by mxmissile

  Should factories persist entities they build? Or is that the job of the caller? Pseudo Example Incoming: public class OrderFactory { public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); .... return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public OrderController(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); repository.Insert(order); ... } } or public class OrderFactory { public OrderFactory(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); ... repository.Insert(order); return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); ... } } Is there a recommended practice here?

  Read the article

• What software design pattern is best for the following scenario (C#)

  - by askjdh

  I have a gps device that records data e.g. datetime, latitude, longitude I have an sdk that reads the data from the device. The way the data is read: A command packet (basically a combination of int values in a struct) is sent to the device. The device responds with the data in fixed size chunks e.g. 64bytes Depending on the command issued I will get back differect data structs e.g. sending command 1 to the device returns a struct like struct x { id int, name char[20] } command 2 returns a collection of the following structs (basically it boils down to an array of the structs - y[12]) struct y { date datetime, lat decimal, lon decimal } I would then want to convert the struct to a class and save the data to a database. What would be the best way to encapsulate the entire process, preferably using some established design pattern? Many thanks M

  Read the article

• Best practice to modularise a large Grails app?

  - by Mulone

  Hi all, A Grails app I'm working on is becoming pretty big, and it would be good to refactor it into several modules, so that we don't have to redeploy the whole thing every time. In your opinion, what is the best practice to split a Grails app in several modules? In particular I'd like to create a package of domain classes + relevant services and use it in the app as a module. Is this possible? Is it possible to do it with plugins? Cheers, Mulone

  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

• ASP.Net MVC: User messages stack implementations

  - by SDReyes

  How would you implement a user message stack in ASP.Net MVC (you set messages for the user in any place inside your app. and they are shown as hints of your app to the user anywhere inside the app) Example:

  Read the article

• Haskell: Pattern Matching with Lists

  - by user1670032

  I'm trying to make a function that takes in a list, and if one of the elements is negative, then any elements in that list that are equal to its positive counterpart should be changed to 0. Eg, if there is a -2 in a list, then all 2's in that list should be changed to 0. Any ideas why it only works for some cases and not others? I'm not understanding why this is, I've looked it over several times. changeToZero [] = [] changeToZero [x] = [x] changeToZero (x:zs:y:ws) | (x < 0) && ((-1)*(x) == y) = x : zs : 0 : changeToZero ws changeToZero (x:xs) = x : changeToZero xs *Main changeToZero [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3] [-2,1,0,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3,2] [-2,1,0,3,2] *Main changeToZero [1,-2,2,2,1] [1,-2,2,0,1]

  Read the article

• Handling Dialogs in WPF with MVVM

  - by Ray Booysen

  In the MVVM pattern for WPF, handling dialogs is one of the more complex operations. As your view model does not know anything about the view, dialog communication can be interesting. I can expose an ICommand that when the view invokes it, a dialog can appear. Does anyone know of a good way to handle results from dialogs? I am speaking about windows dialogs such as MessageBox. One of the ways we did this was have an event on the viewmodel that the view would subscribe to when a dialog was required. public event EventHandler<MyDeleteArgs> RequiresDeleteDialog; This is OK, but it means that the view requires code which is something I would like to stay away from.

  Read the article

• DI with disposable objects

  - by sunnychaganty

  Suppose my repository class looks like this: class myRepository : IDisposable{ private DataContext _context; public myRepository(DataContext context){ _context = context; } public void Dispose(){ // to do: implement dispose of DataContext } } now, I am using Unity to control the lifetime of my repository & the data context & configured the lifetimes as: DataContext - singleton myRepository - create a new instance each time Does this mean that I should not be implementing the IDisposable on the repository to clean up the DataContext? Any guidance on such items?

  Read the article

• Explain "Leader/Follower" Pattern

  - by Alex B

  I can't seem to find a good explanation of "Leader/Follower" pattern. All explanations either simply refer to it in the context of some problem, or are completely meaningless. Can anyone explain to the the mechanics of how this pattern works, and why and how it improves performance over more traditional asynchronous IO models? Examples and links to diagrams are appreciated too.

  Read the article

• Is this class + constructor definition pattern overly redundant?

  - by Protector one

  I often come across a pattern similar to this: class Person { public string firstName, lastName; public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; } } This feels overly redundant (I imagine typing "firstName" once, instead of thrice could be enough…), but I can't think of a proper alternative. Any ideas? Maybe I just don't know about a certain design pattern I should be using here? Edit - I think I need to elaborate a little. I'm not asking how to make the example code "better", but rather, "shorter". In its current state, all member names appear 3 times (declaration, initialization, constructor arguments), and it feels rather redundant. So I'm wondering if there is a pattern (or semantic sugar) to get (roughly) the same behavior, but with less bloat. I apologize for being unclear initially.

  Read the article

• Architecting ASP.net MVC App to use repositories and services

  - by zaladane

  Hello, I recently started reading about ASP.net MVC and after getting excited about the concept, i started to migrate all my webform project to MVC but i am having a hard time keeping my controller skinny even after following all the good advices out there (or maybe i just don't get it ... ). The website i deal with has Articles, Videos, Quotes ... and each of these entities have categories, comments, images that can be associated with it. I am using Linq to sql for database operations and for each of these Entities, i have a Repository, and for each repository, i create a service to be used in the controller. so i have - ArticleRepository ArticleCategoryRepository ArticleCommentRepository and the corresponding service ArticleService ArticleCategoryService ... you see the picture. The problem i have is that i have one controller for article,category and comment because i thought that having ArticleController handle all of that might make sense, but now i have to pass all of the services needed to the Controller constructor. So i would like to know what it is that i am doing wrong. Are my services not designed properly? should i create Bigger service to encapsulate smaller services and use them in my controller? or should i have an articleCategory Controller and an articleComment Controller? A page viewed by the user is made of all of that, thee article to be viewed,the comments associated with it, a listing of the categories to witch it applies ... how can i efficiently break down the controller to keep it "skinny" and solve my headache? Thank you! I hope my question is not too long to be read ...

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >