Search Results

Search found 25902 results on 1037 pages for 'design vs customer'.

Page 8/1037 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Help with MVC design pattern?

    - by user3681240
    I am trying to build a java program for user login but I am not sure if my MVC design is accurate. I have the following classes: LoginControl - servlet LoginBean - data holder java class with private variables getters and setters LoginDAO - concrete java class where I am running my SQL queries and doing rest of the logical work. Connection class - java class just to connect to the database view - jsp to display the results html - used for form Is this how you design a java program based on MVC design pattern? Please provide some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • New to Java and Spring. What are some good design principles for an inexperienced java developer like me?

    - by Imtiaz Ahmad
    I am learning Java and have written a few small useful programs. I am new to spring but have managed to understand the concept of dependency injection for decoupling. I'm trying to applying that in my development work in an enterprise setting. What are the 3 most important design patterns I should master (not for interview purposes but ones that I will use every day in as a good java developer)? Also what are some good java design considerations and practices in coding specifically in Java? My goal is write good decoupled and coherent programs that are easy to maintain that don't make me standout as a java rookie. Stuff like not beginning my package names with com. have already made me precariously visible in my team. But they know I have 2 years of coding experience and its not in java.

    Read the article

  • Database Server Hardware components (order of importance), CPU speed VS CPU cache vs RAM vs DISK

    - by nulltorpedo
    I am new to database world and would like to know what are crucial hardware specs when it comes to database performance. I have searched the internet and found this so far (In order of decreasing importance): 1) Hard Disk: Get an SSD basically (much more IOPS than spinners) 2) Memory: Get as much as you can afford 3) CPU: For the same $ spent, prefer larger cache size over speed. Are these findings sensible? EDIT: I would like to focus on CPU speed VS CPU cache size. EDIT2: The database is used to store some combination of ints and int arrays with few text fields. There are a lot of Select queries looking for existing entries. If entry is not found, then insert it. I would say most of processing would be trying to find a match across a table with 200 columns and 20k rows. The insert statements are very few. EDIT3: Also, we have a lot of views (basically select queries).

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Customer Reviews on Company Listings [closed]

    - by GSTAR
    I'm not sure if this is the right place but I am after some general advice on a feature I am looking to implement on my website. The website I have is a Wedding Directory. Here, companies can advertise in the form of a directory listing. This listing contains the company details - such as what they do and how you can contact them. There are three packages available - Basic package is free and Silver and Gold packages are charged for. Now in order to further enhance the directory, I want to enable customer reviews for each listing. This is basically whereby customers who have used a particular company's service can write a review (and rate out of 5) of their experience. The dilemma I face is that if customers are to be paying for their listings then surely they will expect to not have content on their listing that would tarnish their reputation (i.e. negative reviews). But at the same time I want to be impartial and help my site visitors to make informed choices on which companies to book when arranging their weddings. Of course I will exercise my ability to remove offensive or fake reviews but I do not want to be removing reviews just to satisfy my clients. Suppose a client pays me a premium fee to have their listing on my front page and at the top of the listings. Now suppose that client gets lost of negative reviews - the fact that they have increased visibility means that they will also get increased bad publicity. This in turn means they won't renew their package and will most likely request the listing to be taken down. So, how can I get the right balance here and keep everyone happy?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Fluid VS Responsive Website Development Questions

    - by Aditya P
    As I understand these form the basis for targeting a wide array of devices based on the browser size, given it would be a time consuming to generate different layouts targeting different/specific devices and their resolutions. Questions: Firstly right to the jargon, is there any actual difference between the two or do they mean the same? Is it safe to classify the current development mainly a html5/css3 based one? What popular frameworks are available to easily implement this? What testing methods used in this regard? What are the most common compatibility issues in terms of different browser types? I understand there are methods like this http://css-tricks.com/resolution-specific-stylesheets/ which does this come under?. Are there any external browser detection methods besides the API calls specific to the browser that are employed in this regard? Points of interest [Prior Research before asking these questions] Why shouldn't "responsive" web design be a consideration? Responsive Web Design Tips, Best Practices and Dynamic Image Scaling Techniques A recent list of tutorials 30 Responsive Web Design and Development Tutorials by Eric Shafer on May 14, 2012 Update Ive been reading that the basic point of designing content for different layouts to facilitate a responsive web design is to present the most relevant information. now obviously between the smallest screen width and the highest we are missing out on design elements. I gather from here http://flashsolver.com/2012/03/24/5-top-commercial-responsive-web-designs/ The top of the line design layouts (widths) are desktop layout (980px) tablet layout (768px) smartphone layout – landscape (480px) smartphone layout – portrait (320px) Also we have a popular responsive website testing site http://resizemybrowser.com/ which lists different screen resolutions. I've also come across this while trying to find out the optimal highest layout size to account for http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10538599/default-web-page-width-1024px-or-980px which brings to light seemingly that 1366x768 is a popular web resolution. Is it safe to assume that just accounting for proper scaling from width 980px onwards to the maximum size would be sufficient to accommodate this? given we aren't presenting any new information for the new size. Does it make sense to have additional information ( which conflicts with purpose of responsive web design) to utilize the top size and beyond?

    Read the article

  • What are the software design essentials? [closed]

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

    Read the article

  • How to do dependency Injection and conditional object creation based on type?

    - by Pradeep
    I have a service endpoint initialized using DI. It is of the following style. This end point is used across the app. public class CustomerService : ICustomerService { private IValidationService ValidationService { get; set; } private ICustomerRepository Repository { get; set; } public CustomerService(IValidationService validationService,ICustomerRepository repository) { ValidationService = validationService; Repository = repository; } public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } Now, With the changing requirements, there are going to be different types of customers (Legacy/Regular). The requirement is based on the type of the customer I have to validate and persist the customer in a different way (e.g. if Legacy customer persist to LegacyRepository). The wrong way to do this will be to break DI and do somthing like public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if(customer.Type == CustomerTypes.Legacy) { if (LegacyValidationService.Valid(customer)) LegacyRepository.Save(customer); } else { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } } My options to me seems like DI all possible IValidationService and ICustomerRepository and switch based on type, which seems wrong. The other is to change the service signature to Save(IValidationService validation, ICustomerRepository repository, CustomerDTO customer) which is an invasive change. Break DI. Use the Strategy pattern approach for each type and do something like: validation= CustomerValidationServiceFactory.GetStratedgy(customer.Type); validation.Valid(customer) but now I have a static method which needs to know how to initialize different services. I am sure this is a very common problem, What is the right way to solve this without changing service signatures or breaking DI?

    Read the article

  • Finding it Hard to Deliver Right Customer Experience: Think BPM!

    - by Ajay Khanna
    Our relationship with our customers is not a just a single interaction and we should not treat it like one. A customer’s relationship with a vendor is like a journey which starts way before customer makes a purchase and lasts long after that. The journey may start with customer researching a product that may lead to the eventual purchase and may continue with support or service needs for the product. A typical customer journey can be represented as shown below: As you may notice, customers tend to use multiple channels to interact with a company throughout their journey.  They also expect that they should get consistent experience, no matter what interaction channel they may choose. Customers do not like to repeat the information they have already provided and expect companies to remember their preferences, and offer them relevant products and services. If the company fails to meet this expectation, customers not only will abandon the purchase and go to the competitor but may also influence others’ purchase decision. Gone are the days when word of mouth was the only medium, and the customer could influence “Six” others. This is the age of social media and customer’s good or bad experience, especially bad get highly amplified and may influence hundreds of others. Challenges that face B2C companies today include: Delivering consistent experience: The reason that delivering consistent experience is challenging is due to fragmented data, disjointed systems and siloed multichannel interactions. Customers tend to get different service quality if they use web vs. phone vs. store. They get different responses from different service agents or get inconsistent answers if they call sales vs. service group in the company. Such inconsistent experiences result in lower customer satisfaction or NPS (net promoter score) numbers. Increasing Revenue: To stay competitive companies frequently introduce new products and services. Delay in launching such offerings has a significant impact on revenue realization. In addition to new product revenue, there are multiple opportunities to up-sell and cross-sell that impact bottom line. If companies are not able to identify such opportunities, bring a product to market quickly, or not offer the right product to the right customer at the right time, significant loss of revenue may occur. Ensuring Compliance: Companies must be compliant to ever changing regulations, these could be about Know Your Customer (KYC), Export/Import regulations, or taxation policies. In addition to government agencies, companies also need to comply with the SLA that they have committed to their customers. Lapse in meeting any of these requirements may lead to serious fines, penalties and loss in business. Companies have to make sure that they are in compliance will all such regulations and SLA commitments, at any given time. With the advent of social networks and mobile technology, companies not only need to focus on process efficiency but also on customer engagement. Improving engagement means delivering the customer experience as the customer is expecting and interacting with the customer at right time using right channel. Customers expect to be able to contact you via any channel of their choice (web, email, chat, mobile, social media), purchase via any viable channel (web, phone, store, mobile). Customers expect companies to understand their particular needs and remember their preferences on repeated visits. To deliver such an integrated, consistent, and contextual experience, power of BPM in must. Your company may be organized in departments like Marketing, Sales, Service. You may hold prospect data in SFA, order information in ERP, customer issues in CRM. However, the experience delivered to the customer must not be constrained by your system legacy. BPM helps in designing the right experience for the right customer and integrates all the underlining channels, systems, applications to make sure right information will be delivered to the right knowledge worker or to the customer every single time.     Orchestrating information across all systems (MDM, CRM, ERP), departments (commerce, merchandising, marketing service) and channels (Email, phone, web, social)  is the key, and that’s what BPM delivers. In addition to orchestrating systems and channels for consistency, BPM also provides an ability for analysis and decision management. By using data from historical transactions, social media and from other systems, users can determine the customer preferences, customer value, and churn propensity. This information, in the context, is then used while making a decision at a process step. Working with real-time decision management system can also suggest right up-sell or cross-sell offers, discounts or next-best-action steps for a particular customer. Timely action on customer issues or request is also a key tenet of a good customer experience. BPM’s complex event processing capabilities help companies to take proactive actions before issues get escalated. BPM system can be designed to listen to a certain event patters then deduce from those customer situations (credit card stolen, baggage lost, change of address) and do a triage before situation goes out of control. If such a situation arises you can send alerts to right people or immediately invoke corrective actions. Last but not least one of BPM’s key values is to drive continuous improvement. Learning about customers past experiences, interactions and social conversations, provide valuable insight. Such insight can be used to improve products, customer facing processes, and customer experience. You may take these insights as an input to design better more efficient and customer friendly sales, contact center or self-service processes. If customer experience is important for your business, make sure you have incorporated BPM as a part of your strategy to design, orchestrate and improve your customer facing processes.

    Read the article

  • Rails: The Law of Demeter [duplicate]

    - by user2158382
    This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns for Agent / Actor based concurrent design.

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

    Read the article

  • Msql Partitioning - Key vs Hash vs List vs Range

    - by Imran Omar Bukhsh
    I went through some of the documentation of mysql but cannot understand the difference in the following ways of partitioning : Key vs Hash vs List vs Range.Can someone explain in pure english? Also we have the following table: How do we partition by forum_id? CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS `posts_content` ( `id` int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `post_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `forum_id` int(11) NOT NULL, `content` longtext CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_unicode_ci NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (`id`) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=79850 ; Thanking you

    Read the article

  • N-Tiered application design tool

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

    Read the article

  • Good design of mapping Java Domain objects to Tables (using Hibernate)

    - by M. McKenzie
    Hey guys, I have a question that is more in the realm of design, than implementation. I'm also happy for anyone to point out resources for the answer and I'll gladly, research for myself. Highly simplified Java and SQL: Say I have a business domain POJO called 'Picture' with three attributes. class Picture int idPicture String fileName long size Say I have another business domain POJO called "Item" with 3 attributes Class Item int idItem String itemName ArrayList itemPictures These would be a normal simple relationship. You could say that 'Picture' object, will never exist outside an 'Item' object. Assume a picture belongs only to a specific item, but that an item can have multiple pictures Now - using good database design (3rd Normal Form), we know that we should put items and pictures in their own tables. Here is what I assume would be correct. table Item int idItem (primary key) String itemName table Picture int idPicture (primary key) varchar(45) fileName long size int idItem (foreign key) Here is my question: If you are making Hibernate mapping files for these objects. In the data design, your Picture table needs a column to refer to the Item, so that a foreign key relation can be maintained. However,in your business domain objects - your Picture does not hold a reference/attribute to the idItem - and does not need to know it. A java Picture instance is always instantiated inside an Item instance. If you want to know the Item that the Picture belongs to you are already in the correct scope. Call myItem.getIdItem() and myItem.getItemPictures(),and you have the two pieces of information you need. I know that Hibernate tools have a generator that can auto make your POJO's from looking at your database. My problem stems from the fact that I planned out the data design for this experiment/project first. Then when I went to make the domain java objects, I realized that good design dictated that the objects hold other objects in a nested way. This is obviously different from the way that a database schema is - where all objects(tables) are flat and hold no other complex types within them. What is a good way to reconcile this? Would you: (A) Make the hibernate mapping files so that Picture.hbm.xml has a mapping to the POJO parent's idItem Field (if it's even possible) (B) Add an int attribute in the Picture class to refer to the idItem and set it at instantiation, thus simplifying the hbm.xml mapping file by having all table fields as local attributes in the class (C) Fix the database design because it is wrong, dork. I'd truly appreciate any feedback

    Read the article

  • General Overview of Design Pattern Types

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

    Read the article

  • CIC 2010 - Ghost Stories and Model Based Design

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • How to design good & continuous tiles

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Learning good OOP design & unlearning some bad habits

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

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >