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 77/170 | < Previous Page | 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84  | Next Page >

  • What do you call the concept of dynamic data definition?

    - by DJTripleThreat
    Maybe this is simpler and more straightforward then what I'm thinking but I can't seem to find this concept on google anywhere. The concept is this: You have a table in a database and the table has a specified number of columns. However, it has been asked of me by previous clients that there also be a set of dynamic user defined columns that can be added on the fly. What is this concept called and is it considered a design pattern?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern: Polymorphism for list of objects

    - by ziang
    Suppose I have a class A, and A1, A2 inherits from A. There are 2 functions: List<A1> getListA1(){...} List<A2> getListA2(){...} Now I want to do something similar to both A1 and A2 in another function public void process(List<A>){...} If I want to pass the instance of either ListA1 or ListA2, of course the types doesn't match because the compiler doesn't allow the coercion from List< A1 to List< A. I can't do something like this: List<A1> listA1 = getListA1(); List<A> newList = (List<A>)listA1; //this is not allowed. So what is the best approach to the process()? Is there any way to do it in a universal way rather than write the similar code to both List and List?

    Read the article

  • Best Design Pattern to Implement while Mapping Actions in MVC

    - by FidEliO
    What could be the best practices of writing the following case: We have a controller which based on what paths users take, take different actions. For example: if user chooses the path /path1/hello it will say hello. If a user chooses /path1/bye?name="Philipp" it will invoke sayGoodBye() and etc. I have written a switch statement inside the controller which is simple, however IMO not efficient. What are the best way to implement this, considering that paths are generally String. private void takeAction() { switch (path[1]) { case "hello": //sayHello(); break; case "bye": //sayBye(); break; case "case3": //Blah(); break; ... } }

    Read the article

  • Separating data from the UI code with Linq to SQL entities

    - by Sir Psycho
    If it's important to keep data access 'away' from business and presentation layers, what alternatives or approaches can I take so that my LINQ to SQL entities can stay in the data access layer? So far I seem to be simply duplicating the classes produced by sqlmetal, and passing those object around instead simply to keep the two layers appart. For example, I have a table in my DB called Books. If a user is creating a new book via the UI, the Book class generated by sqlmetal seems like a perfect fit although I'm tightly coupling my design by doing so.

    Read the article

  • Application wide messaging... without singletons?

    - by StormianRootSolver
    So, I want to go for a more Singleton - less design in the future. However, there seem to be a lot of tasks in an application that can't be done in meaningful way without singletons. I call them "application wide services", but they also fall into the same category as the cross cutting concerns, which I usually fix via AOP. Lets take an example: I want an application wide message queue that dispatches messages to components, every component can subscribe and publish there, it's a very nice multicast thing. The message queue and dispatching system are usually a (rather short) singleton class, which is very easy to implement in, say, C#. You can even use double dispatching and utilize message type metadata and the like, it's all so easy to do, it's almost trivial. However, having singletons is not really "object oriented design" (it introduces global variables) and it makes testing harder. Do you have any ideas? I'm asking this question because I'm willing to learn more about this topic, a LOT more. :-)

    Read the article

  • Instantiate a javascript module only one time.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    Hey guys, I follow a module pattern where I instantiate components, however, a lot of time a component will only be instantiate one time (example: a comment system for an article). For now I instantiate in the same JS file. but I was wondering if it is the wrong approach? It kind of make no sense to instantiate in the same file and always only once. But at the same time, if this file is in the page I want to have access to my module without instantiate from elsewhere, and IF I need another instance, I just create another from elsewhere... Here is the pattern I follow: ApplicationNamespace.Classname = function() { // constructor function privateFunctionInit() { // private } this.privilegedFunction = function() { // privileged privateFunction(); }; privateFunctionInit() }; ApplicationNamespace.Classname.prototype = { Method: function(){} } var class = new ApplicationNamespace.Classname(); What do you think, wrong approach, or is this good?

    Read the article

  • c++ design question: Can i query the base classes to find the number of derived classes satisfying a

    - by vivekeviv
    I have a piece of code like this class Base { public: Base(bool _active) { active = _active; } void Configure(); void Set Active(bool _active); private: bool active; }; class Derived1 : public Base { public: Derived1(bool active):Base(active){} }; similarly Derived 2 and Derived 3 Now if i call derived1Object.Configure, i need to check how many of the derived1Obj, derived2Obj,derived3Obj is active. Should i add this in the "Base" class like a function say, GetNumberOfActive()? And If the implementation is like this: class Imp { public: void Configure() { //Code instantiating a particular Derived1/2/3 Object int GetNumberOfActiveDerivedObj(); baseRef.Configure(int numberOfActiveDerivedClasses); } prive: Derived1 dObj1(true); Derived2 dObj2(false); Derived3 dObj3(true); }; should i calculate the numberOfActive Derived Objects in Imp Class? THanks

    Read the article

  • which design choose? - pros and cons

    - by Guarava Makanili
    Which of these 3 approches would choose and why? // This is the one I would choose class Car { } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } } // in that case the problem might be when we use ORM framework and we try to invoke save with parameter Car class Car { private FeeCalculator calculator; public double calculateFee() { return calculator.calculateFee(this); } } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } } // in that case the problem mentioned above is solved, but I don't like this design class Car { public double calculateFee(FeeCalculator calculator) { return calculator.calculateFee(this); } } class FeeCalculator { public double calculateFee(Car car) { return 0; } }

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for loading multiple message types

    - by lukem00
    As I was looking through SO I came across a question about handling multiple message types. My concern is - how do I load such a message in a neat way? I decided to have a separate class with a method which loads one message each time it's invoked. This method should create a new instance of a concrete message type (say AlphaMessage, BetaMessage, GammaMessage, etc.) and return it as a Message. class MessageLoader { public Message Load() { // ... } } The code inside the method is something which looks really awful to me and I would very much like to refactor it/get rid of it: Message msg = Message.Load(...); // load yourself from whatever source if (msg.Type == MessageType.Alpha) return new AlphaMessage(msg); if (msg.Type == MessageType.Beta) return new BetaMessage(msg); // ... In fact, if the whole design looks just too messy and you guys have a better solution, I'm ready to restructure the whole thing. If my description is too chaotic, please let me know what it's missing and I shall edit the question. Thank you all.

    Read the article

  • Sequencing ajax requests

    - by Scott Evernden
    I find I sometimes need to iterate some collection and make an ajax call for each element. I want each call to return before moving to the next element so that I don't blast the server with requests - which often leads to other issues. And I don't want to set async to false and freeze the browser. Usually this involves setting up some kind of iterator context that i step thru upon each success callback. I think there must be a cleaner simpler way? Does anyone have a clever design pattern for how to neatly work thru a collection making ajax calls for each item?

    Read the article

  • Singleton & Multithreading in Java

    - by vivek jagtap
    What is the preferred way to work with Singleton class in multithreaded environment? Suppose if I have 3 thread, and all they try to access getInstance() method of singleton class at the same time - What would happen if no synchronization is maintained? Is it good practice to use synchronized getInstance() method or use synchronized block inside getInstance(). Please advise if there is any other way out.

    Read the article

  • A cross-platform application WPF, ASP.NET, Silverlight, WP7, XAML

    - by J. Lennon
    Considering the fact that all applications will interact with the web project (which will use the cloud or web services).. Is there any way to share my class models between applications? If yes, what is the best way to do it? About sending / receiving data from the Webservice, serialize and deserialize, how can I do this in a simple way without having to manually populate the objects? Any information about this applications would be really helpful!

    Read the article

  • I'd want a method to be called only by objects of a specific class

    - by mp
    Suppose you have this class: public class A { private int number; public setNumber(int n){ number = n; } } I'd like the method setNumber could be called only by objects of a specific class. Does it make sense? I know it is not possible, is it? Which are the design alternatives? Some well known design pattern? Sorry for the silly question, but I'm a bit rusty in OO design.

    Read the article

  • Which design pattern fits - strategy makes sense ?

    - by user554833
    --Bump *One desperate try to get someone's attention I have a simple database table that stores list of users who have subscribed to folders either by email OR to show up on the site (only on the web UI). In the storage table this is controlled by a number(1 - show on site 2- by email). When I am showing in UI I need to show a checkbox next to each of folders for which the user has subscribed (both email & on site). There is a separate table which stores a set of default subscriptions which would apply to each user if user has not expressed his subscription. This is basically a folder ID and a virtual group name. But, Email subscriptions do not count for applying these default groups. So if no "on site" subscription apply default group. Thats the rule. How about a strategy pattern here (Pseudo code) Interface ISubscription public ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithoutDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionOnlyDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) does this even make sense? I would be more than glad for receive any criticism / help / notes. I am learning. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Magic Method __set() on a Instanciated Object

    - by streetparade
    Ok i have a problem, sorry if i cant explaint it clear but the code speaks for its self. i have a class which generates objects from a given class name; Say we say the class is Modules: public function name($name) { $this->includeModule($name); try { $module = new ReflectionClass($name); $instance = $module->isInstantiable() ? $module->newInstance() : "Err"; $this->addDelegate($instance); } catch(Exception $e) { Modules::Name("Logger")->log($e->getMessage()); } return $this; } The AddDelegate Method: protected function addDelegate($delegate) { $this->aDelegates[] = $delegate; } The __call Method public function __call($methodName, $parameters) { $delegated = false; foreach ($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if(class_exists(get_class($delegate))) { if(method_exists($delegate,$methodName)) { $method = new ReflectionMethod(get_class($delegate), $methodName); $function = array($delegate, $methodName); return call_user_func_array($function, $parameters); } } } The __get Method public function __get($property) { foreach($this->aDelegates as $delegate) { if ($delegate->$property !== false) { return $delegate->$property; } } } All this works fine expect the function __set public function __set($property,$value) { //print_r($this->aDelegates); foreach($this->aDelegates as $k=>$delegate) { //print_r($k); //print_r($delegate); if (property_exists($delegate, $property)) { $delegate->$property = $value; } } //$this->addDelegate($delegate); print_r($this->aDelegates); } class tester { public function __set($name,$value) { self::$module->name(self::$name)->__set($name,$value); } } Module::test("logger")->log("test"); // this logs, it works echo Module::test("logger")->path; //prints /home/bla/test/ this is also correct But i cant set any value to class log like this Module::tester("logger")->path ="/home/bla/test/log/"; The path property of class logger is public so its not a problem of protected or private property access. How can i solve this issue? I hope i could explain my problem clear.

    Read the article

  • How to write this in better way?

    - by dario
    Hi all. Let's look at this code: IList<IHouseAnnouncement> list = new List<IHouseAnnouncement>(); var table = adapter.GetData(); //get data from repository object -> DataTable if (table.Rows.Count >= 1) { for (int i = 0; i < table.Rows.Count-1; i++) { var anno = new HouseAnnouncement(); anno.Area = float.Parse(table.Rows[i][table.powierzchniaColumn].ToString()); anno.City = table.Rows[i][table.miastoColumn].ToString(); list.Add(anno); } } return list; Is it better way to write this in less code and better fashion (must be :-) )? Maybe using labda (but let mi know how)? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • Object Events, how do are they implemented

    - by Malfist
    Events are really awesome, and I wouldn't know what I would do without them, but they're a mystery to me. I'm talking about events in a sense, a function(s) is called if a property, or value, a special event happens. I have only the vaguest idea how these actually work. I know it's an observer pattern, but I don't truly know how it works and/or how to implement it. Can someone explain that to me?

    Read the article

  • Structuring iPhone/iPad application views

    - by Mark
    I have an idea about an application that I want to build and Im new to iPhone/iPad development (but not new to development in other languages/frameworks such as .NET and Java). I want to layout some views on the screen so that they animate (slide in) from different directions into their places. The question is about the strucuture of the application, if I have say 4 rectanglular areas on the screen that contain business data, such as contacts (name, photo, etc...) and they all take up different widths of the screen (say the first contact takes up one row of the screen, but the next 2 take up half the width of the next row each, and so on). Should I create a custom view for the different sized contact views, (i.e. LargeCustomView and SmallCustomView, and any other special type that I make) or should it all be one type, say, CustomerDetailsView which could be stretched to fit at design time? Also, if there were, say, 3 different instances of the same custom view on the one screen, are there 3 instances of the view controller also? Im a little confused about powering the data behind a view, can someone shed some light on this for me? Do I just set the properties (say an instance variable ContactForView) on the view controller for each instance? Thanks for any help you can give Cheers, Mark

    Read the article

  • c# class design - what can I use instead of "static abstract"?

    - by Ryan
    I want to do the following public abstract class MyAbstractClass { public static abstract int MagicId { get; } public static void DoSomeMagic() { // Need to get the MagicId value defined in the concrete implementation } } public class MyConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass { public static override int MagicId { get { return 123; } } } However I can't because you can't have static abstract members. I understand why I can't do this - any recommendations for a design that will achieve much the same result? (For clarity - what I am trying to do is provide a library with an abstract base class but the concrete versions MUST implement a few properties/methods themselves and yes, there are good reasons for keeping it static.)

    Read the article

  • What exactly is GRASP's Controller about?

    - by devoured elysium
    What is the idea behind Grasp's Controller pattern? My current interpretation is that sometimes you want to achieve something that needs to use a couple of classes but none of those classes could or has access to the information needed to do it, so you create a new class that does the job, having references to all the needed classes(this is, could be the information expert). Is this a correct view of what Grasp's Controller is about? Generally when googling or SO'ing controller, I just get results about MVC's (and whatnot) which are topics that I don't understand about, so I'd like answers that don't assume I know ASP.NET's MVC or something :( Thanks

    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 | 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84  | Next Page >