Search Results

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

Page 80/231 | < Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >

  • Passing ViewModel for backbone.js from MVC3 Server-Side

    - by Roman
    In ASP.NET MVC there is Model, View and Controller. MODEL represents entities which are stored in database and essentially is all the data used in a application (for example, generated by EntityFramework, "DB First" approach). Not all data from model you want to show in the view (for example, hashs of passwords). So you create VIEW MODEL, each for every strongly-typed-razor-view you have in application. Like this: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; namespace MyProject.ViewModels.SomeController.SomeAction { public class ViewModel { public ViewModel() { Entities1 = new List<ViewEntity1>(); Entities2 = new List<ViewEntity2>(); } public List<ViewEntity1> Entities1 { get; set; } public List<ViewEntity2> Entities2 { get; set; } } public class ViewEntity1 { //some properties from original DB-entity you want to show } public class ViewEntity2 { } } When you create complex client-side interfaces (I do), you use some pattern for javascript on client, MVC or MVVM (I know only these). So, with MVC on client you have another model (Backbone.Model for example), which is third model in application. It is a bit much. Why don`t we use the same ViewModel model on a client (in backbone.js or another framework)? Is there a way to transfer CS-coded model to JS-coded? Like in MVVM pattern, with knockout.js, when you can do like this: in SomeAction.cshtml: <div style="display: none;" id="view_model">@Json.Encode(Model)</div> after that in Javascript-code var ViewModel = ko.mapping.fromJSON($("#view_model").get(0).innerHTML); now you can extend your ViewModel with some actions, event handlers, etc: ko.utils.extend(ViewModel, { some_function: function () { //some code } }); So, we are not building the same view model on the client again, we are transferring existing view model from server. At least, data. But knockout.js is not suitable for me, you can`t build complex UI with it, it is just data-binding. I need something more structural, like backbone.js. The only way to build ViewModel for backbone.js I can see now is re-writing same ViewModel in JS from server with hands. Is there any ways to transfer it from server? To reuse the same viewmodel on server view and client view?

    Read the article

  • Conceptually, how does replay work in a game?

    - by SnOrfus
    I was kind of curious as to how replay might be implemented in a game. Initially, I thought that there would be just a command list of every player/ai action that was taken in the game, and it then 're-plays' the game and lets the engine render as usual. However, I have looked at replays in FPS/RTS games, and upon careful inspection even things like the particles and graphical/audible glitches are consistent (and those glitches are generally *in*consistent). So How does this happen. In fixed camera angle games I though it might just write every frame of the whole scene to a stream that gets stored and then just replays the stream back, but that doesn't seem like enough for games that allow you to pause and move the camera around. You'd have to store the locations of everything in the scene at all points in time (No?). So for things like particles, that's a lot of data to push which seems like a significant draw on the game's performance whilst playing.

    Read the article

  • WPF binding to a boolean on a control

    - by Jose
    I'm wondering if someone has a simple succinct solution to binding to a dependency property that needs to be the converse of the property. Here's an example I have a textbox that is disabled based on a property in the datacontext e.g.: <TextBox IsEnabled={Binding CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> The requirement changes and I want to make it ReadOnly instead of disabled, so without changing my ViewModel I could do this: In the UserControl resources: <UserControl.Resources> <m:NotConverter x:Key="NotConverter"/> </UserControl.Resources> And then change the TextBox to: <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding CanEdit,Converter={StaticResource NotConverter}} Text={Binding MyText}/> Which I personally think is EXTREMELY verbose I would love to be able to just do this(notice the !): <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding !CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> But alas, that is not an option that I know of. I can think of two options. Create an attached property IsNotReadOnly to FrameworkElement(?) and bind to that property If I change my ViewModel then I could add a property CanEdit and another CannotEdit which I would be kind of embarrassed of because I believe it adds an irrelevant property to a class, which I don't think is a good practice. The main reason for the question is that in my project the above isn't just for one control, so trying to keep my project as DRY as possible and readable I am throwing this out to anyone feeling my pain and has come up with a solution :)

    Read the article

  • pattern to transfer search model to dao

    - by zeroed
    We have a dao as a project (jar file). Clients use its interfaces and factories to operate with database. Using standard CRUD operations, dao allows you to search an entity by some search criteria. What is the best way to represent this criteria? Is transfer object appropriate pattern in this situation? How should client create SearchModel instance? Please, share. Regards.

    Read the article

  • How to "wrap" implementation in C#

    - by igor
    Hello, I have these classes in C# (.NET Framework 3.5) described below: public class Base { public int State {get; set;} public virtual int Method1(){} public virtual string Method2(){} ... public virtual void Method10(){} } public class B: Base { // some implementation } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; public class Proxy(B b) { _b = b; } public override int Method1() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method1(); else return base.Method1(); } public override string Method2() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method2(); else return base.Method2(); } public override void Method10() { if (State == Running) _b.Method10(); else base.Method10(); } } I want to get something this: public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) // may be some other rule return _b; else return base; // compile error } and my Proxy's implementation will be: public class Proxy: Base { ... public override int Method1() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method1(); } public override string Method2() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method2(); } ... } Of course, I can do this (aggregation of base implementation): public RepeaterOfBase: Base // no any overrides, just inheritance { } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; private RepeaterOfBase _Base; public class Proxy(B b, RepeaterOfBase aBase) { _b = b; _base = aBase; } } ... public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) return _b; else return _Base; } ... But instance of Base class is very huge and I have to avoid to have other additional copy in memory. So I have to simplify my code have to "wrap" implementation have to avoid a code duplication have to avoid aggregation of any additional instance of Base class (duplication) Is it possible to reach these goals?

    Read the article

  • Detecting similar words among n text documents

    - by javanes
    Hi; I have n documents and want to find common words that are included in these documents. For example I want to say (n-3) documents include the word "web". Certainly I can do this by basic data structures but there maybe efficient algorithm or a way to handle same words with different suffix. Is there any algorithm for such purposes? I am unfamiliar with datamining world. In general manner is there a term used for efforts of finding similarities between different documents? If there is then I will make my research easily. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Managing libraries and imports in a programming language

    - by sub
    I've created an interpreter for a stupid programming language in C++ and the whole core structure is finished (Tokenizer, Parser, Interpreter including Symbol tables, core functions, etc.). Now I have a problem with creating and managing the function libraries for this interpreter (I'll explain what I mean with that later) So currently my core function handler is horrible: // Simplified version myLangResult SystemFunction( name, argc, argv ) { if ( name == "print" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } cout << argv[ 0 ]; } else if ( name == "input" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } string res; getline( cin, res ); SetVariable( argv[ 0 ], res ); } else if ( name == "exit ) { exit( 0 ); } And now think of each else if being 10 times more complicated and there being 25 more system functions. Unmaintainable, feels horrible, is horrible. So I thought: How to create some sort of libraries that contain all the functions and if they are imported initialize themselves and add their functions to the symbol table of the running interpreter. However this is the point where I don't really know how to go on. What I wanted to achieve is that there is e.g.: an (extern?) string library for my language, e.g.: string, and it is imported from within a program in that language, example: import string myString = "abcde" print string.at( myString, 2 ) # output: c My problems: How to separate the function libs from the core interpreter and load them? How to get all their functions into a list and add it to the symbol table when needed? What I was thinking to do: At the start of the interpreter, as all libraries are compiled with it, every single function calls something like RegisterFunction( string namespace, myLangResult (*functionPtr) ); which adds itself to a list. When import X is then called from within the language, the list built with RegisterFunction is then added to the symbol table. Disadvantages that spring to mind: All libraries are directly in the interpreter core, size grows and it will definitely slow it down.

    Read the article

  • Using Remote Web Server to Initialize iPhone App

    - by Chris_K
    My iPhone app relies on a vendor's XML feed to provide data. But that feed is not locked down. The vendor could change the format of the XML at any time, although so far they've promised not to. Since I might want to tell my app to use a different URL for its data source, I'd like to set up a single "Command Central" Web page, on my own server, to direct the app to the correct data source. In other words, each time my app starts, in the background and unseen by the user, it would visit "http://www.myserver.com/iphoneapp_data_sources.xml" to retrieve the URL for retrieving data from my vendor. That way, if my vendor suddenly changes the exact URL or the XML feed that the app needs, I can update that Web page and ensure that all installations of the app are using the correct XML feed. Does anyone have any advice or examples showing this kind of approach? It seems as if this must be a common problem, but so far I haven't found a well-established design pattern that fits it.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern to separate messages from actual process.

    - by Manish Gupta
    I am having a C# application to sync data between PC and palm devices. There are codes written like below: showMessage("synchronizing Table1"); Sync(destTable1,sourceTable1); Sync(destTable2,sourceTable2); showMessage("synchronizing Table2"); // more code How do I separate the actual process of synchronizing from displaying message? Which design pattern to follow? Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • Effective communication in a component-based system

    - by Tesserex
    Yes, this is another question about my game engine, which is coming along very nicely, with much thanks to you guys. So, if you watched the video (or didn't), the objects in the game are composed of various components for things like position, sprites, movement, collision, sounds, health, etc. I have several message types defined for "tell" type communication between entities and components, but this only goes so far. There are plenty of times when I just need to ask for something, for example an entity's position. There are dozens of lines in my code that look like this: SomeComponent comp = (SomeComponent)entity.GetComponent(typeof(SomeComponent)); if (comp != null) comp.GetSomething(); I know this is very ugly, and I know that casting smells of improper OO design. But as complex as things are, there doesn't seem to be a better way. I could of course "hard-code" my component types and just have SomeComponent comp = entity.GetSomeComponent(); but that seems like a cop-out, and a bad one. I literally JUST REALIZED, while writing this, after having my code this way for months with no solution, that a generic will help me. SomeComponent comp = entity.GetComponent<SomeComponent>(); Amazing how that works. Anyway, this is still only a semantic improvement. My questions remain. Is this actually that bad? What's a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • How to make notification to group users with read/unread flag?

    - by user2335065
    I am making a notification system so that when users in a group perform an action, it will notify all the other users in the group. I want the notification to be marked "read" or "unread" for each user of the group. With that, I can easily retreive any unread notification for a user and display it. I am think about creating a notification table that have the following fields. +----------------------+ | notification | +----------------------+ | id | | userid | | content | | status (read/unread) | | time | +----------------------+ My question is: Whether it is the correct way of making the system? As it means that when there is 1,000 users in a group, then I have to insert 1,000 rows to the table. If not, what is the better way of doing this? If it is the way to do this, how can I write the php/mysql codes to do the looping of inserting the rows? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • 'is instanceof' Interface bad design

    - by peterRit
    Say I have a class A class A { Z source; } Now, the context tells me that 'Z' can be an instance of different classes (say, B and C) which doesn't share any common class in their inheritance tree. I guess the naive approach is to make 'Z' an Interface class, and make classes B and C implement it. But something still doesn't convince me because every time an instance of class A is used, I need to know the type of 'source'. So all finishes in multiple 'ifs' making 'is instanceof' which doesn't sound quite nice. Maybe in the future some other class implements Z, and having hardcoded 'ifs' of this type definitely could break something. The escence of the problem is that I cannot resolve the issue by adding functions to Z, because the work done in each instance type of Z is different. I hope someone can give me and advice, maybe about some useful design pattern. Thanks

    Read the article

  • C# Linq: Can you merge DataContexts?

    - by Andreas Grech
    Say I have one database, and this database has a set of tables that are general to all Clients and some tables that are specific to certain clients. Now what I have in mind is creating a primary DataContext that includes only the tables that are general to all the clients, and then create separate DataContexts that contain only the tables that are specific to the client. Is there a way to kind of "merge" DataContexts so that it becomes one context? So for Client A, I need one DataContext that includes both the general tables and also the tables for that specific client (retrieved from two different DataContexts) ? [Update] What I think I can do is, from the Partial Class of the DataContext instead of letting my DataContext inherit from DataContext I make it inherit from MyDataContext; that way, the tables from MyDataContext and the other DataContext will be available in one DataContext class. What do you think about this approach? Of course with something like this you can only merge two datacontexts at once though...

    Read the article

  • Inheritance in tables - structure problem

    - by Naor
    I have 3 types of users in my system. each type has different information I created the following tables: BaseUser(base_user_id, username, password, additional common data) base_user_id is PK and Identity UserType1(user_id, data related to type1 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType2(user_id, data related to type2 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType3(user_id, data related to type3 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id Now I have relation from each type of user to warehouses table. Users from type1 and type2 should have only warehouse_id and users from type3 should have warehouse_id and customer_id. I thought about this structure: WarehouseOfUser(base_user_id,warehouse_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser WarehouseOfTyp3User(base_user_id,warehouse_id, customer_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser The problem is that such structure allows 2 things I want to prevent: 1. add to WarehouseOfTyp3User data of user from type2 or type1. 2. add to WarehouseOfUser data of user from type3. what is the best structure for such case?

    Read the article

  • Stored Procedure or calculations via IQueryable?

    - by Shawn Mclean
    This is a question that is based on choosing performance over design practices. If I have a method that will be executed many times a second; public static IQueryable<IPerson> InRadius(this IQueryable<IPerson> query, Coordinate center, double radius) { return (from u in query where CallHeavyMathFormula(u, center, radius) select u); } This extension method for IQueryable generates a SQL that does some heavy maths calculation (Cosine, Sine, etc). This would mean the application sends 1-2KB of sql to the server per call. I've heard of placing all application logic, in your application. I also would like to change to a database such as azure or one of those scalable databases in the future. How do I handle something like this? Should I leave it as it is now or write stored procedures? How do applications like twitter or facebook do it?

    Read the article

  • Writing a synchronized thread-safety wrapper for NavigableMap

    - by polygenelubricants
    java.util.Collections currently provide the following utility methods for creating synchronized wrapper for various collection interfaces: synchronizedCollection(Collection<T> c) synchronizedList(List<T> list) synchronizedMap(Map<K,V> m) synchronizedSet(Set<T> s) synchronizedSortedMap(SortedMap<K,V> m) synchronizedSortedSet(SortedSet<T> s) Analogously, it also has 6 unmodifiedXXX overloads. The glaring omission here are the utility methods for NavigableMap<K,V>. It's true that it extends SortedMap, but so does SortedSet extends Set, and Set extends Collection, and Collections have dedicated utility methods for SortedSet and Set. Presumably NavigableMap is a useful abstraction, or else it wouldn't have been there in the first place, and yet there are no utility methods for it. So the questions are: Is there a specific reason why Collections doesn't provide utility methods for NavigableMap? How would you write your own synchronized wrapper for NavigableMap? Glancing at the source code for OpenJDK version of Collections.java seems to suggest that this is just a "mechanical" process Is it true that in general you can add synchronized thread-safetiness feature like this? If it's such a mechanical process, can it be automated? (Eclipse plug-in, etc) Is this code repetition necessary, or could it have been avoided by a different OOP design pattern?

    Read the article

  • Have you ever derived a programming solution from nature?

    - by Ryu
    When you step back and look at ... the nature of animals, insects, plants and the problems they have organically solved perhaps even the nature and balance of the universe Have you ever been able to solve a problem by deriving an approach from nature? I've heard of Ant Colony Algorithms being able to optimize supply chain amongst other things. Also Fractal's being the "geometry of nature" have been applied to a wide range of problems. Now that spring is here again and the world is coming back to life I'm wondering if anybody has some experiences they can share. Thanks PS I would recommend watching the "Hunting the Hidden Dimension" Nova episode on fractals.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for accessing Model using MVVM pattern

    - by Dzenand
    I have a database that communicates with webservices with my Model (own thread) and exposes Data Objects. My UI application consists of different Views and ViewModels and Custom Controls. I'm using ServiceProvider (IServiceProvider) to access the Model and route the events to the UI thread. Communication between the ViewModels is handeled by a Messenger. Is this way to go? I was also wondering what is the best way to strucutre the DataObjects At the moment i have the DataObjects that have a hierarchy structure but does not support INotifyProperty though the children list are of type of ObservableCollection. I have no possiblity to implement notifypropertychange on the properties. I was wondering the best way of making them MVVM friendly. Implementing a partial class and adding all the properties or commands that are necessary or wrapping all the DataObjects and keep the Model list and MVVM list in sync. All thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Java - Calling all methods of a class

    - by Thomas Eschemann
    I'm currently working on an application that has to render several Freemarker templates. So far I have a Generator class that handles the rendering. The class looks more or less like this: public class Generator { public static void generate(…) { renderTemplate1(); renderTemplate2(); renderTemplate3(); } private static void render(…) { // renders the template } private static void renderTemplate1() { // Create config object for the rendering // and calls render(); }; private static void renderTemplate1() { // Create config object for the rendering // and calls render(); }; … } This works, but it doesn't really feel right. What I would like to do is create a class that holds all the renderTemplate...() methods and then call them dynamically from my Generator class. This would make it cleaner and easier to extend. I was thinking about using something like reflection, but it doesn't really feel like a good solution either. Any idea on how to implement this properly ?

    Read the article

  • Multiple leaf methods problem in composite pattern

    - by Ondrej Slinták
    At work, we are developing an PHP application that would be later re-programmed into Java. With some basic knowledge of Java, we are trying to design everything to be easily re-written, without any headaches. Interesting problem came out when we tried to implement composite pattern with huge number of methods in leafs. What are we trying to achieve (not using interfaces, it's just an example): class Composite { ... } class LeafOne { public function Foo( ); public function Moo( ); } class LeafTwo { public function Bar( ); public function Baz( ); } $c = new Composite( Array( new LeafOne( ), new LeafTwo( ) ) ); // will call method Foo in all classes in composite that contain this method $c->Foo( ); It seems like pretty much classic Composite pattern, but problem is that we will have quite many leaf classes and each of them might have ~5 methods (of which few might be different than others). One of our solutions, which seems to be the best one so far and might actually work, is using __call magic method to call methods in leafs. Unfortunately, we don't know if there is an equivalent of it in Java. So the actual question is: Is there a better solution for this, using code that would be eventually easily re-coded into Java? Or do you recommend any other solution? Perhaps there's some different, better pattern I could use here. In case there's something unclear, just ask and I'll edit this post.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC Filters: How to set Viewdata for Dropdown based on action parameter

    - by CRice
    Hi, Im loading an entity 'Member' from its id in route data. [ListItemsForMembershipType(true)] public ActionResult Edit(Member someMember) {...} The attribute on the action loads the membership type list items for a dropdown box and sticks it in viewdata. This is fine for add forms, and search forms (it gets all active items) but I need the attribute to execute BASED ON THE VALUE someMember.MembershipTypeId, because its current value must always be present when loading the item (i.e. all active items, plus the one from the loaded record). So the question is, what is the standard pattern for this? How can my attribute accept the value or should I be loading the viewdata for the drop down in a controller supertype or during model binding or something else? It is in an attribute now because the code to set the viewdata would otherwise be duplicated in each usage in each action.

    Read the article

  • How to design authentication in a thick client, to be fail safe?

    - by Jay
    Here's a use case: I have a desktop application (built using Eclipse RCP) which on start, pops open a dialog box with 'UserName' and 'Password' fields in it. Once the end user, inputs his UserName and Password, a server is contacted (a spring remote-servlet, with the client side being a spring httpclient: similar to the approaches here.), and authentication is performed on the server side. A few questions related to the above mentioned scenario: If said this authentication service were to go down, what would be the best way to handle further proceedings? Authentication is something that I cannot do away with. Would running the desktop client in a "limited" mode be a good idea? For instance, important features/menus/views will be disabled, rest of the application will be accessible? Should I have a back up authentication service running on a different machine, working as a backup? What are the general best-practices in this scenario? I remember reading about google gears and how it would let you edit and do stuff offline - should something like this be designed? Please let me know your design/architectural comments/suggestions. Appreciate your help.

    Read the article

  • Doubleton Pattern Implementation

    - by Pierreten
    I'm leveraging the Doubleton Pattern from this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/designpattern_doubleton.aspx in my own code. I think it makes things a lot easier since the Singleton only provides one instance, but I get two with this pattern. I was wondering if it would make sense to have it implement an interface so I can inject it into my domain layer.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87  | Next Page >