Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 8/133 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Open World Session - BPM, SOA and ADF Combined:Patterns learned from Fusion Applications

    - by mesriniv
    Blog by Meera Srinivasan (Oracle Product Management) Today afternoon (10/2/2012), Mohan Kamath, and I (Meera Srinivasan) delivered an Open World session on how Oracle Fusion Applications (the next generation business applications from Oracle), use Oracle BPM, Oracle SOA and Oracle ADF products. These adoption patterns can be applied in a generic manner to produce process-centric, user-centric, highly customizable and extensible next generation application. The session was well attended and we had lively discussions with the attendees during Q & A. We started with why as an application developer, you should look at BPM for creating a process-centric application and presented the following fusion adoption patterns Model driven agile development Customization and Extension Guided Process Interactions Personalization and Customization of End User Interfaces Approval Flows Fusion HCM, On Boarding Process - Activity Guide Interface was used as an example for the Guided Process Interactions adoption pattern and the Fusion CRM BPM Process Templates for Customization adoption pattern. In the Personalization and Customization of End User Interfaces section, we looked at how ADF is used within Oracle BPM and the various options available to customize end user interfaces. We also presented how Oracle Procurement does complex approvals using Rules and Approval Management Extensions. We hope you found the session useful, and please do try to attend Heidi’s session on dynamic case management: Case Management Patterns with Oracle Unified Business Process Management Suite. Marriott Marquis - Salon 7, Thu 11:15 AM - 12:15 PM

    Read the article

  • Suggestions: Anti-Pattern counter-examples

    - by Tom W
    It doesn't seem that this exact question has been asked before, so I'll fire away: Most of us are familiar with the concept of an anti-pattern. However, avoiding implementation of anti-patterns can in principle swing too far the other way and cause problems itself. As an example, "Design by Committee" has a counter-example that I'd call "Design by Maverick" - wherein the design of an important feature is handed off to an individual to do what they think best, with the intention of reviewing their work later and deciding whether it should be finalised or go through another iteration. This takes much longer in practice as the rest of the team are occupied by other things, and can end up with a feature that's useful to nobody, particularly if the Maverick is not themselves an experienced end-user. Does anyone have any more examples of anti-pattern counter-examples?

    Read the article

  • Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

    - by Robert Fraser
    I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

    Read the article

  • Leveraging Microsoft Patterns and Practices

    - by Tim Murphy
    I want to bring the Patterns and Practices group to the attention of those who have not already been exposed.  I have been a fan of the P&P team since they came out with the original Application Blocks which eventually turned into the Enterprise Library.  Their main purpose is to assemble guidance and tools that make it easier for all of us to build amazing solutions.  I would simply suggest you spend some time exploring the information and code libraries that they have produced.  Free resources are always a great find and I have used a number of the P&P solutions over the years with success.  If nothing else you may find some new ideas.  Enjoy. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/practices/                           del.icio.us Tags: Patterns and Practices,Microsoft,Architecture,software development

    Read the article

  • Game mechanics patterns database?

    - by Klaim
    Do you know http://tvtropes.org ? It's a kind of wiki/database with scenaristic tropes, patterns that you can find in tones of stories, in tv shows, games, books, etc. Each trope/pattern have a (funny) name and there are references to where it appears, and the other way arround : each book/game/etc. have a list of tropes that it contains. I'm looking for an equivalent but for game mechanics patterns, something like "Death is definitive", "Perfect physical control (no inertia)", "Excell table gameplay", etc. I think it would be really useful. I can't find an equivalent for game mechanics (tvtrope is oriented to scenario, not game mechanics). Do you know any?

    Read the article

  • AJI Report #18 | Patrick Delancy On Code Smells and Anti-Patterns

    - by Jeff Julian
    Patrick Delancy, the first person we interviewed on the AJI Report, is joining us again for Episode 18. This time around Patrick explains what Code Smells and Anti-patterns are and how developers can learn from these issues in their code. Patrick takes the approach of addressing your code in his presentations instead of pointing fingers at others. We spend a lot of time talking about how to address a developer with bad practices in place that would show up on the radar as a Code Smell or Anti-Pattern without making them feel inferior. Patrick also list out a few open-source frameworks that use good patterns and practices as well as how he continues his education through interacting with other developers. Listen to the Show Site: http://patrickdelancy.com Twitter: @PatrickDelancy LinkedIn: LinkedIn Google+: Profile

    Read the article

  • Case Management Patterns with Oracle Unified Business Process Management Suite

    - by Ajay Khanna
    Contributed by Heidi Buelow, Oracle Product Management Case Management was a hot topic all week at Oracle OpenWorld so I was excited to share our current features and upcoming plans at the session Thursday morning on Case Management Patterns with Oracle Unified Business Process Management Suite.  My colleague, Ravi Rangaswamy, the Case Management Development Manager, and I, Heidi Buelow, the Case Management Product Manager, discussed case management use case patterns with an interested audience.  We also talked about the current BPM Suite offering for Case Managment and showed a demo of our upcoming release where Case Management becomes a first class component in a BPM composite application. Case Management use case patterns cover a wide range of horizontal applications such as Accounts Payable, Dispute Resolution, Call Center, Employee OnBoarding, and many vertical applications in domains and industries such as Public Sector services, Insurance claims, and Healthcare.  Really, it is any use case where the resolution of a request may require a knowledge worker making decisions using experienced judgement in the current situation.  This allows for expidited care and customer satisfaction, both being highly valued for consumer loyalty, regulatory compliance, and efficient resolution. Today, BPM Suite provides the tools for creating Case Management applications using BPMN 2.0, Business Rules, and rich BAM and Case Analytics.  The Process Composer provides the agility to change rules and processes by the business users.  The case manager and case workers have the flexibilty they need.  With integrated content management and the concept of a BPM Process Spaces instance (case) space, the current release enables case management use case applications. In the next release, Case Management becomes a first class component. By this, we mean, Case is a separate component in the composite.  We are adding case attributes such as milestones, case events, case stakeholders, and more, providing a rich toolset for the use cases that require a flexible Case Management approach.  Activites become available according to the conditions that you specify and information can be protected by permissions indicated.  In BPM Studio, you design a Case and associate all of the attributes and activities that are needed, yet, at runtime you have the flexibility to add and change these as needed. We enjoyed sharing Case Management and it was well received by the audience.  The presentation is available online and we have viewlets of the demo that will be available at release time.

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • Cloud to On-Premise Connectivity Patterns

    - by Rajesh Raheja
    Do you have a requirement to convert an Opportunity in Salesforce.com to an Order/Quote in Oracle E-Business Suite? Or maybe you want the creation of an Oracle RightNow Incident to trigger an on-premise Oracle E-Business Suite Service Request creation for RMA and Field Scheduling? If so, read on. In a previous blog post, I discussed integrating TO cloud applications, however the use cases above are the reverse i.e. receiving data FROM cloud applications (SaaS) TO on-premise applications/databases that sit behind a firewall. Oracle SOA Suite is assumed to be on-premise with with Oracle Service Bus as the mediation and virtualization layer. The main considerations for the patterns are are security i.e. shielding enterprise resources; and scalability i.e. minimizing firewall latency. Let me use an analogy to help visualize the patterns: the on-premise system is your home - with your most valuable possessions - and the SaaS app is your favorite on-line store which regularly ships (inbound calls) various types of parcels/items (message types/service operations). You need the items at home (on-premise) but want to safe guard against misguided elements of society (internet threats) who may masquerade as postal workers and vandalize property (denial of service?). Let's look at the patterns. Pattern: Pull from Cloud The on-premise system polls from the SaaS apps and picks up the message instead of having it delivered. This may be done using Oracle RightNow Object Query Language or SOAP APIs. This is particularly suited for certain integration approaches wherein messages are trickling in, can be centralized and batched e.g. retrieving event notifications on an hourly schedule from the Oracle Messaging Service. To compare this pattern with the home analogy, you are avoiding any deliveries to your home and instead go to the post office/UPS/Fedex store to pick up your parcel. Every time. Pros: On-premise assets not exposed to the Internet, firewall issues avoided by only initiating outbound connections Cons: Polling mechanisms may affect performance, may not satisfy near real-time requirements Pattern: Open Firewall Ports The on-premise system exposes the web services that needs to be invoked by the cloud application. This requires opening up firewall ports, routing calls to the appropriate internal services behind the firewall. Fusion Applications uses this pattern, and auto-provisions the services on the various virtual hosts to secure the topology. This works well for service integration, but may not suffice for large volume data integration. Using the home analogy, you have now decided to receive parcels instead of going to the post office every time. A door mail slot cut out allows the postman can drop small parcels, but there is still concern about cutting new holes for larger packages. Pros: optimal pattern for near real-time needs, simpler administration once the service is provisioned Cons: Needs firewall ports to be opened up for new services, may not suffice for batch integration requiring direct database access Pattern: Virtual Private Networking The on-premise network is "extended" to the cloud (or an intermediary on-demand / managed service offering) using Virtual Private Networking (VPN) so that messages are delivered to the on-premise system in a trusted channel. Using the home analogy, you entrust a set of keys with a neighbor or property manager who receives the packages, and then drops it inside your home. Pros: Individual firewall ports don't need to be opened, more suited for high scalability needs, can support large volume data integration, easier management of one connection vs a multitude of open ports Cons: VPN setup, specific hardware support, requires cloud provider to support virtual private computing Pattern: Reverse Proxy / API Gateway The on-premise system uses a reverse proxy "API gateway" software on the DMZ to receive messages. The reverse proxy can be implemented using various mechanisms e.g. Oracle API Gateway provides firewall and proxy services along with comprehensive security, auditing, throttling benefits. If a firewall already exists, then Oracle Service Bus or Oracle HTTP Server virtual hosts can provide reverse proxy implementations on the DMZ. Custom built implementations are also possible if specific functionality (such as message store-n-forward) is needed. In the home analogy, this pattern sits in between cutting mail slots and handing over keys. Instead, you install (and maintain) a mailbox in your home premises outside your door. The post office delivers the parcels in your mailbox, from where you can securely retrieve it. Pros: Very secure, very flexible Cons: Introduces a new software component, needs DMZ deployment and management Pattern: On-Premise Agent (Tunneling) A light weight "agent" software sits behind the firewall and initiates the communication with the cloud, thereby avoiding firewall issues. It then maintains a bi-directional connection either with pull or push based approaches using (or abusing, depending on your viewpoint) the HTTP protocol. Programming protocols such as Comet, WebSockets, HTTP CONNECT, HTTP SSH Tunneling etc. are possible implementation options. In the home analogy, a resident receives the parcel from the postal worker by opening the door, however you still take precautions with chain locks and package inspections. Pros: Light weight software, IT doesn't need to setup anything Cons: May bypass critical firewall checks e.g. virus scans, separate software download, proliferation of non-IT managed software Conclusion The patterns above are some of the most commonly encountered ones for cloud to on-premise integration. Selecting the right pattern for your project involves looking at your scalability needs, security restrictions, sync vs asynchronous implementation, near real-time vs batch expectations, cloud provider capabilities, budget, and more. In some cases, the basic "Pull from Cloud" may be acceptable, whereas in others, an extensive VPN topology may be well justified. For more details on the Oracle cloud integration strategy, download this white paper.

    Read the article

  • New Endpoint options that enable additional application patterns

    - by kaleidoscope
    The two communication-related capabilities:  a) inter-role communication and b) external endpoints on worker roles enable new application patterns in Windows Azure-hosted services. Inter-role Communication - A common application pattern enabled by this is client-server, where the server could be an application such as a database or a memory cache. External Endpoints on Worker Roles - A common application type enabled by this is a self-hosted Internet-exposed service, such as a custom application server. For further details click on the following link: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsazure/archive/2009/11/24/new-endpoint-options-enable-additional-application-patterns.aspx   Tinu, O

    Read the article

  • AdventueWorks Design Patterns Project - Part 1

    - by RonGarlit
    This is the presentation I did tonight at PHILLYNJ.NET.  It is the first in a multi-part of a series on the Applied Design Patterns.   The solution files are working code with design pattern notes in the comment blocks. After the overview and higher level discussions on Enterprise Design Patterns I reviewed the low level Database Access Library of code.  With walk-throughs of the the code and unint test. After that we went through the ProductPhotoConsoleTest Application that performed intergration testing of the DBAccess Class with the AdventureWorks ProductPhoto table extracting the photos and writing them to a file folder. The Demo code and PowerPoint can be obained from this link.  https://skydrive.live.com/?wa=wsignin1.0&cid=29e34e9a8650bb9e#!/?cid=29e34e9a8650bb9e&sc=documents&id=29E34E9A8650BB9E%21151 Please note that I use Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate.  If you have a lesser version the Modeling projects likely will not work or have limited functionality and you should unload that project to prevent warning. Enjoy! --Ron

    Read the article

  • Design Patterns for SSIS Performance (Presentation)

    Here are the slides from my session (Design patterns for SSIS Performance) presented at SQLBits VI in London last Friday. Slides - Design Patterns for SSIS Performance - Darren Green.pptx (86KB) It was an interesting session, with some very kind feedback, especially considering I woke up on Friday without a voice. The remnants of a near fatal case on man flu rather than any overindulgence the night before I assure you. With much coughing, I tried to turn the off the radio mike during the worst, and an interesting vocal range, we got through it and it seemed to be well received. Thanks to all those who attended.

    Read the article

  • Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 3.5: Node.js relay

    - by Elton Stoneman
    This is an extension to Part 3 in the IPASBR series, see also: Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 1: Exposing the on-premise service Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 2: Anonymous full-trust .NET consumer Integration Patterns with Azure Service Bus Relay, Part 3: Anonymous partial-trust consumer In Part 3 I said “there isn't actually a .NET requirement here”, and this post just follows up on that statement. In Part 3 we had an ASP.NET MVC Website making a REST call to an Azure Service Bus service; to show that the REST stuff is really interoperable, in this version we use Node.js to make the secure service call. The code is on GitHub here: IPASBR Part 3.5. The sample code is simpler than Part 3 - rather than code up a UI in Node.js, the sample just relays the REST service call out to Azure. The steps are the same as Part 3: REST call to ACS with the service identity credentials, which returns an SWT; REST call to Azure Service Bus Relay, presenting the SWT; request gets relayed to the on-premise service. In Node.js the authentication step looks like this: var options = { host: acs.namespace() + '-sb.accesscontrol.windows.net', path: '/WRAPv0.9/', method: 'POST' }; var values = { wrap_name: acs.issuerName(), wrap_password: acs.issuerSecret(), wrap_scope: 'http://' + acs.namespace() + '.servicebus.windows.net/' }; var req = https.request(options, function (res) { console.log("statusCode: ", res.statusCode); console.log("headers: ", res.headers); res.on('data', function (d) { var token = qs.parse(d.toString('utf8')); callback(token.wrap_access_token); }); }); req.write(qs.stringify(values)); req.end(); Once we have the token, we can wrap it up into an Authorization header and pass it to the Service Bus call: token = 'WRAP access_token=\"' + swt + '\"'; //... var reqHeaders = { Authorization: token }; var options = { host: acs.namespace() + '.servicebus.windows.net', path: '/rest/reverse?string=' + requestUrl.query.string, headers: reqHeaders }; var req = https.request(options, function (res) { console.log("statusCode: ", res.statusCode); console.log("headers: ", res.headers); response.writeHead(res.statusCode, res.headers); res.on('data', function (d) { var reversed = d.toString('utf8') console.log('svc returned: ' + d.toString('utf8')); response.end(reversed); }); }); req.end(); Running the sample Usual routine to add your own Azure details into Solution Items\AzureConnectionDetails.xml and “Run Custom Tool” on the .tt files. Build and you should be able to navigate to the on-premise service at http://localhost/Sixeyed.Ipasbr.Services/FormatService.svc/rest/reverse?string=abc123 and get a string response, going to the service direct. Install Node.js (v0.8.14 at time of writing), run FormatServiceRelay.cmd, navigate to http://localhost:8013/reverse?string=abc123, and you should get exactly the same response but through Node.js, via Azure Service Bus Relay to your on-premise service. The console logs the WRAP token returned from ACS and the response from Azure Service Bus Relay which it forwards:

    Read the article

  • Is this an acceptable UI design decision?

    - by DVK
    OK, while I'm on record as stating that StackExchange UI is pretty much one of the best websites and overall GUIs that I have ever seen as far as usability goes, there's one particular aspect of the trilogy that bugs me. For an example, head on to http://meta.stackoverflow.com . Look at the banner on top (the one that says "reminder -- it's April Fool's Day depending on your time zone!"). Personally, I feel that this is a "make the user do the figuring out work" anti-pattern (whatever it's officially called) - namely, instead of making your app smart enough to only present a certain mode of operations in the conditions when that mode is appropriate, you simply turn on the mode full on and put an explanation to the user of why the mode is on when it should not be (in this particular example, the mode is of course displaying the unicorn gravatars starting with 00:00 in the first timezone, despite the fact that some users still live in March 31st). The Great Recalc was also handled the same way - instead of proactively telling the user "your rep was changed from X to Y" the same nearly invisible banner was displayed on meta. So, the questions are: Is there such an official anti-pattern, and if so,m what the heck do i call it? Do you have any other well-known examples of such design anti-pattern? How would you fix either the SO example I made or you your own example? Is there a pattern of fixing or must it be a case-by-case solution?

    Read the article

  • C#: How to resolve this circular dependency?

    - by Rosarch
    I have a circular dependency in my code, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. I am developing a game. A NPC has three components, responsible for thinking, sensing, and acting. These components need access to the NPC controller to get access to its model, but the controller needs these components to do anything. Thus, both take each other as arguments in their constructors. ISenseNPC sense = new DefaultSenseNPC(controller, worldQueryEngine); IThinkNPC think = new DefaultThinkNPC(sense); IActNPC act = new DefaultActNPC(combatEngine, sense, controller); controller = new ControllerNPC(act, think); (The above example has the parameter simplified a bit.) Without act and think, controller can't do anything, so I don't want to allow it to be initialized without them. The reverse is basically true as well. What should I do? ControllerNPC using think and act to update its state in the world: public class ControllerNPC { // ... public override void Update(long tick) { // ... act.UpdateFromBehavior(CurrentBehavior, tick); CurrentBehavior = think.TransitionState(CurrentBehavior, tick); } // ... } DefaultSenseNPC using controller to determine if it's colliding with anything: public class DefaultSenseNPC { // ... public bool IsCollidingWithTarget() { return worldQuery.IsColliding(controller, model.Target); } // ... }

    Read the article

  • AntFarm anti-pattern -- strategies to avoid, antidotes to help heal from

    - by alchemical
    I'm working on a 10 page web site with a database back-end. There are 500+ objects in use, trying to implement the MVP pattern in ASP.Net. I'm tracing the code-execution from a single-page, my finger has been on F-11 in Visual Studio for about 40 minutes, there seems to be no end, possibly 1000+ method calls for one web page! If it was just 50 objects that would be one thing, however, code execution snakes through all these objects just like millions of ants frantically woring in their giant dirt mound house, riddled with object tunnels. Hence, a new anti-pattern is born : AntFarm. AntFarm is also known as "OO-Madnes", "OO-Fever", OO-ADD, or simply design-pattern junkie. This is not the first time I've seen this, nor my associates at other companies. It seems that this style is being actively propogated, or in any case is a misunderstanding of the numerous OO/DP gospels going around... I'd like to introduce an anti-pattern to the anti-pattern: GST or "Get Stuff Done" AKA "Get Sh** done" AKA GRD (GetRDone). This pattern focused on just what it says, getting stuff done, in a simple way. I may try to outline it more in a later post, or please share your ideas on this antidote pattern. Anyway, I'm in the midst of a great example of AntFarm anti-pattern as I write (as a bonus, there is no documentation or comments). Please share you thoughts on how this anti-pattern has become so prevelant, how we can avoid it, and how can one undo or deal with this pattern in a live system one must work with!

    Read the article

  • When is lazy evaluation not useful?

    - by Cherian
    Delay execution is almost always a boon. But then there are cases when it’s a problem and you resort to “fetch” (in Nhibernate) to eager fetch it. Do you know practical situations when lazy evaluation can bite you back…?

    Read the article

  • Can the Diamond Problem be really solved?

    - by Mecki
    A typical problem in OO programming is the diamond problem. I have parent class A with two sub-classes B and C. A has an abstract method, B and C implement it. Now I have a sub-class D, that inherits of B and C. The diamond problem is now, what implementation shall D use, the one of B or the one of C? People claim Java knows no diamond problem. I can only have multiple inheritance with interfaces and since they have no implementation, I have no diamond problem. Is this really true? I don't think so. See below: [removed vehicle example] Is a diamond problem always the cause of bad class design and something neither programmer nor compiler needs to solve, because it shouldn't exist in the first place? Update: Maybe my example was poorly chosen. See this image Of course you can make Person virtual in C++ and thus you will only have one instance of person in memory, but the real problem persists IMHO. How would you implement getDepartment() for GradTeachingFellow? Consider, he might be student in one department and teach in another one. So you can either return one department or the other one; there is no perfect solution to the problem and the fact that no implementation might be inherited (e.g. Student and Teacher could both be interfaces) doesn't seem to solve the problem to me.

    Read the article

  • Initialization of components with interdependencies - possible antipattern?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm writing a game that has many components. Many of these are dependent upon one another. When creating them, I often get into catch-22 situations like "WorldState's constructor requires a PathPlanner, but PathPlanner's constructor requires WorldState." Originally, this was less of a problem, because references to everything needed were kept around in GameEngine, and GameEngine was passed around to everything. But I didn't like the feel of that, because it felt like we were giving too much access to different components, making it harder to enforce boundaries. Here is the problematic code: /// <summary> /// Constructor to create a new instance of our game. /// </summary> public GameEngine() { graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); //Sets dimensions of the game window graphics.PreferredBackBufferWidth = 800; graphics.PreferredBackBufferHeight = 600; graphics.ApplyChanges(); IsMouseVisible = true; screenManager = new ScreenManager(this); //Adds ScreenManager as a component, making all of its calls done automatically Components.Add(screenManager); // Tell the program to load all files relative to the "Content" directory. Assets = new CachedContentLoader(this, "Content"); inputReader = new UserInputReader(Constants.DEFAULT_KEY_MAPPING); collisionRecorder = new CollisionRecorder(); WorldState = new WorldState(new ReadWriteXML(), Constants.CONFIG_URI, this, contactReporter); worldQueryUtils = new WorldQueryUtils(worldQuery, WorldState.PhysicsWorld); ContactReporter contactReporter = new ContactReporter(collisionRecorder, worldQuery, worldQueryUtils); gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; pathPlanner = new PathPlanner(this, worldQueryUtils, WorldQuery); gameObjectManager.PathPlanner = pathPlanner; combatEngine = new CombatEngine(worldQuery, new Random()); } Here is an excerpt of the above that's problematic: gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; I hope that no one ever forgets that setting of gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine, or else it will fail. Here is the problem: gameObjectManager needs a WorldQuery, and WorldQuery needs a property of gameObjectManager. What can I do about this? Have I found an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • C# unusual inheritance syntax w/ generics

    - by anon
    I happened upon this in an NHibernate class definition: public class SQLiteConfiguration : PersistenceConfiguration<SQLiteConfiguration> So this class inherits from a base class that is parameterized by... the derived class?   My head just exploded. Can someone explain what this means and how this pattern is useful? (This is NOT an NHibernate-specific question, by the way.)

    Read the article

  • How to use a 3rd party control inside the viewmodel?

    - by Sander
    I have a 3rd party control which among other things performs loading of some data. I want my viewmodel to keep track of this load operation and adjust its own state accordingly. If it were up to me, I'd do the data loading far away from the view, but it is not. So, I seem to be in the situation where my viewmodel depends on my view. How do I best handle this? I feel rather dirty making the view publish events to the viewmodel but I don't see any other reasonable way to get this info into the viewmodel. A similar situation might crop up with standard controls, too - imagine if your viewmodel depends on the events coming from a MediaElement - how do you properly model this? Do you put the MediaElement into the viewmodel? That doesn't sound right. If publishing the events to the viewmodel is indeed the most reasonable way, is there some common pattern used for this? How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • Repository Design Pattern Guidance

    - by thefactor
    Let's say you have an MVVM CRM application. You have a number of customer objects in memory, through a repository. What would be the appropriate place to handle tasks that aren't associated with traditional MVVM tasks from a GUI? For example, let's say every few minutes you want to check to see if their address is valid and pop up a notification if it is not. Or you want to send out an hourly e-mail update. Or you want a window to pop up to remind you to call a customer at a specific time. Where does this logic go? It's not GUI/action-oriented, and it's not logic that would be appropriate for a repository, I think.

    Read the article

  • Domain-Driven-Design question

    - by Michael
    Hello everyone, I have a question about DDD. I'm building a application to learn DDD and I have a question about layering. I have an application that works like this: UI layer calls = Application Layer - Domain Layer - Database Here is a small example of how the code looks: //****************UI LAYER************************ //Uses Ioc to get the service from the factory. //This factory would be in the MyApp.Infrastructure.dll IImplementationFactory factory = new ImplementationFactory(); //Interface and implementation for Shopping Cart service would be in MyApp.ApplicationLayer.dll IShoppingCartService service = factory.GetImplementationFactory<IShoppingCartService>(); //This is the UI layer, //Calling into Application Layer //to get the shopping cart for a user. //Interface for IShoppingCart would be in MyApp.ApplicationLayer.dll //and implementation for IShoppingCart would be in MyApp.Model. IShoppingCart shoppingCart = service.GetShoppingCartByUserName(userName); //Show shopping cart information. //For example, items bought, price, taxes..etc ... //Pressed Purchase button, so even for when //button is pressed. //Uses Ioc to get the service from the factory again. IImplementationFactory factory = new ImplementationFactory(); IShoppingCartService service = factory.GetImplementationFactory<IShoppingCartService>(); service.Purchase(shoppingCart); //**********************Application Layer********************** public class ShoppingCartService : IShoppingCartService { public IShoppingCart GetShoppingCartByUserName(string userName) { //Uses Ioc to get the service from the factory. //This factory would be in the MyApp.Infrastructure.dll IImplementationFactory factory = new ImplementationFactory(); //Interface for repository would be in MyApp.Infrastructure.dll //but implementation would by in MyApp.Model.dll IShoppingCartRepository repository = factory.GetImplementationFactory<IShoppingCartRepository>(); IShoppingCart shoppingCart = repository.GetShoppingCartByUserName(username); //Do shopping cart logic like calculating taxes and stuff //I would put these in services but not sure? ... return shoppingCart; } public void Purchase(IShoppingCart shoppingCart) { //Do Purchase logic and calling out to repository ... } } I've seem to put most of my business rules in services rather than the models and I'm not sure if this is correct? Also, i'm not completely sure if I have the laying correct? Do I have the right pieces in the correct place? Also should my models leave my domain model? In general I'm I doing this correct according DDD? Thanks!

    Read the article

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