Search Results

Search found 41035 results on 1642 pages for 'object oriented design'.

Page 87/1642 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • CSS In The World Of Website Design

    Style sheet languages are computer languages which have now been heavily used in the Internet. It was introduced in the industry of website design when people sought many ways on how to avoid the use... [Author: Margarette Mcbride - Web Design and Development - May 06, 2010]

    Read the article

  • SEO Web Design - A Worthwhile Investment?

    The last decade has seen an increased focus on SEO and SEO web design. With SEO a popular 'buzz' word amongst businesses of many different sizes some people may have begun to ask themselves how they could benefit from SEO web design.

    Read the article

  • The Rise Of CSS In Web Design

    Style sheet languages were introduced in the market because of their capability to reduce the problems which are usually associated with the use of tables in website design. One of the most popular s... [Author: Margarette Mcbride - Web Design and Development - May 04, 2010]

    Read the article

  • Factory pattern vs ease-of-use?

    - by Curtis White
    Background, I am extending the ASP.NET Membership with custom classes and extra tables. The ASP.NET MembershipUser has a protected constructor and a public method to read the data from the database. I have extended the database structure with custom tables and associated classes. Instead of using a static method to create a new member, as in the original API: I allow the code to instantiate a simple object and fill the data because there are several entities. Original Pattern #1 Protected constructor > static CreateUser(string mydata, string, mydata, ...) > User.Data = mydata; > User.Update() My Preferred Pattern #2 Public constructor > newUser = new MembershipUser(); > newUser.data = ... > newUser.ComplextObject.Data = ... > newUser.Insert() > newUser.Load(string key) I find pattern #2 to be easier and more natural to use. But method #1 is more atomic and ensured to contain proper data. I'd like to hear any opinions on pros/cons. The problem in my mind is that I prefer a simple CRUD/object but I am, also, trying to utilize the underlying API. These methods do not match completely. For example, the API has methods, like UnlockUser() and a readonly property for the IsLockedOut

    Read the article

  • Uncaught TypeError: Object #<an Object> has no method 'fullCalendar'

    - by Lalit
    Hi, I have embed the fullcalender control in my asp.net mvc application. It is running fine locally. but when I uploads it to my domain server (third party) it showing me This Error: Uncaught TypeError: Object # has no method 'fullCalendar' in crome console (debugger). and not rendering the control. ** EDITED: My HTML code is this ** <%@ Page Title="" Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage" % Index <% var serializer = new System.Web.Script.Serialization.JavaScriptSerializer(); % < style type='text/css' body { margin-top: 40px; text-align: center; font-size: 14px; font-family: "Lucida Grande",Helvetica,Arial,Verdana,sans-serif; } #calendar { width: 900px; margin: 0 auto; } < script type="text/javascript" $(document).ready(function() { var date = new Date(); var d = date.getDate(); var m = date.getMonth(); var y = date.getFullYear(); var officerid = document.getElementById('officerid').value; url = "/TasksToOfficer/Calender/" + officerid; var currenteventIden = <%= serializer.Serialize( ViewData["iden"] ) %> var calendar = $('#calendar').fullCalendar({ header: { left: 'prev,next today', center: 'title', right: 'month,agendaWeek,agendaDay', border: 0 }, eventClick: function(event, element) { var title = prompt('Event Title:', event.title, { buttons: { Ok: true, Cancel: false} }); var iden = event.id; if (title) { var st = event.start; var ed = event.end; var aldy = event.allDay; var dt = event.date; event.title = title; calendar.fullCalendar('updateEvent',event); var date = new Date(st); var NextMonth = date.getMonth() + 1; var dateString = (date.getDate()) + '/' + NextMonth + '/' + date.getFullYear(); var QueryStringForEdit=null; QueryStringForEdit="officerid=" + officerid + "&description=" + title + "&date=" + dateString + "&IsForUpdate=true&iden=" + iden; if (officerid) { $.ajax( { type: "POST", url: "/TasksToOfficer/Create", data: QueryStringForEdit, success: function(result) { if (result.success) $("#feedback input").attr("value", ""); // clear all the input fields on success }, error: function(req, status, error) { } }); } } }, selectable: true, selectHelper: true, select: function(start, end, allDay) { var title = prompt('Event Title:', { buttons: { Ok: true, Cancel: false } } ); if (title) { calendar.fullCalendar('renderEvent', { title: title, start: start, end: end, allDay: allDay }, false); // This is false , because do not show same event on same date after render from server side. var date = new Date(start); var NextMonth = date.getMonth() + 1; // Reason: it is bacause of month array it starts from 0 var dateString = (date.getDate()) + '/' + NextMonth + '/' + date.getFullYear(); if (officerid) { $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: "/TasksToOfficer/Create", data: "officerid=" + officerid + "&description=" + title + "&date=" + dateString + "&IsForUpdate=false", success: function(result) { if (result.success) $("#feedback input").attr("value", ""); //$("#feedback_status").slideDown(250).text(result.message); }, error: function(req, status, error) { } }); } } calendar.fullCalendar('unselect'); }, editable: true, events: url }); }); //--------------------------------------------------------------------------// </script > <h2> Index</h2> <div id="calendar"> </div> <input id="officerid" type="hidden" value="<%=ViewData["officerid"].ToString()%>" />

    Read the article

  • Is It Incorrect to Make Domain Objects Aware of The Data Access Layer?

    - by Noah Goodrich
    I am currently working on rewriting an application to use Data Mappers that completely abstract the database from the Domain layer. However, I am now wondering which is the better approach to handling relationships between Domain objects: Call the necessary find() method from the related data mapper directly within the domain object Write the relationship logic into the native data mapper (which is what the examples tend to do in PoEAA) and then call the native data mapper function within the domain object. Either it seems to me that in order to preserve the 'Fat Model, Skinny Controller' mantra, the domain objects have to be aware of the data mappers (whether it be their own or that they have access to the other mappers in the system). Additionally it seems that Option 2 unnecessarily complicates the data access layer as it creates table access logic across multiple data mappers instead of confining it to a single data mapper. So, is it incorrect to make the domain objects aware of the related data mappers and to call data mapper functions directly from the domain objects? Update: These are the only two solutions that I can envision to handle the issue of relations between domain objects. Any example showing a better method would be welcome.

    Read the article

  • Difference between Singleton implemention using pointer and using static object

    - by Anon
    EDIT: Sorry my question was not clear, why do books/articles prefer implementation#1 over implementation#2? What is the actual advantage of using pointer in implementation of Singleton class vs using a static object? Why do most books prefer this class Singleton { private: static Singleton *p_inst; Singleton(); public: static Singleton * instance() { if (!p_inst) { p_inst = new Singleton(); } return p_inst; } }; over this class Singleton { public: static Singleton& Instance() { static Singleton inst; return inst; } protected: Singleton(); // Prevent construction Singleton(const Singleton&); // Prevent construction by copying Singleton& operator=(const Singleton&); // Prevent assignment ~Singleton(); // Prevent unwanted destruction };

    Read the article

  • Modeling a Generic Relationship in a Database

    - by StevenH
    This is most likely one for all you sexy DBAs out there: How would I effieciently model a relational database whereby I have a field in an "Event" table which defines a "SportType". This "SportsType" field can hold a link to different sports tables E.g. "FootballEvent", "RubgyEvent", "CricketEvent" and "F1 Event". Each of these Sports tables have different fields specific to that sport. My goal is to be able to genericly add sports types in the future as required, yet hold sport specific event data (fields) as part of my Event Entity. Is it possible to use an ORM such as NHibernate / Entity framework which would reflect such a relationship? I have thrown together a quick C# example to express my intent at a higher level: public class Event<T> where T : new() { public T Fields { get; set; } public Event() { EventType = new T(); } } public class FootballEvent { public Team CompetitorA { get; set; } public Team CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class TennisEvent { public Player CompetitorA { get; set; } public Player CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class F1RacingEvent { public List<Player> Drivers { get; set; } public List<Team> Teams { get; set; } } public class Team { public IEnumerable<Player> Squad { get; set; } } public class Player { public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime DOB { get; set;} }

    Read the article

  • Entity framework (1): implement 1 foreign key to multiple tables

    - by Michel
    Hi, i've modeled this: i have an import table, and an import steps table import 1 .. N importsteps Now i have a table importparams, which hold key/value pairs to register all kind of info about the import or the importsteps. So i have modeled a FK in SqlServer which points to the PK of the import table and to the PK of the importsteps table (the ID's for both the import as the importsteps table are guids, so i can query the importparams with either the id from import or from importsteps and get the right importparams). Makes sense a bit? But how can i model this in the EF? I can see it's a bit hard for the EF to model this, because one realtion can point to multiple classes, but is there a way? The workaround normally is just to get all importparams where FK is the ID, but as you know the FK is not available in the EF version 1. I hope you can help me out, michel

    Read the article

  • Designing a state machine in C++

    - by skyeagle
    I have a little problem that involves modelling a state machine. I have managed to do a little bit of knowledge engineering and 'reverse engineer' a set of primitive deterministic rules that determine state as well as state transitions. I would like to know what the best practises are regarding: How to rigorously test my states and state transitions to make sure that the system cannot end up in an undeetermined state. How to enforce state transition requirements (for example, it should be impossible to go directly from stateFoo to StateFooBar, i.e. to embue each state with 'knowlege' about the states it can transition to. Ideally, I would like to use clean, pattern based design, with templates wherever possible. I do need somewhere to start though and I would be grateful for any pointers (no pun intended), that are sent my way.

    Read the article

  • Modeling a Generic Relationship (expressed in C#) in a Database

    - by StevenH
    This is most likely one for all you sexy DBAs out there: How would I effieciently model a relational database whereby I have a field in an "Event" table which defines a "SportType"? This "SportsType" field can hold a link to different sports tables E.g. "FootballEvent", "RubgyEvent", "CricketEvent" and "F1 Event". Each of these Sports tables have different fields specific to that sport. My goal is to be able to genericly add sports types in the future as required, yet hold sport specific event data (fields) as part of my Event Entity. Is it possible to use an ORM such as NHibernate / Entity framework / DataObjects.NET which would reflect such a relationship? I have thrown together a quick C# example to express my intent at a higher level: public class Event<T> where T : new() { public T Fields { get; set; } public Event() { EventType = new T(); } } public class FootballEvent { public Team CompetitorA { get; set; } public Team CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class TennisEvent { public Player CompetitorA { get; set; } public Player CompetitorB { get; set; } } public class F1RacingEvent { public List<Player> Drivers { get; set; } public List<Team> Teams { get; set; } } public class Team { public IEnumerable<Player> Squad { get; set; } } public class Player { public string Name { get; set; } public DateTime DOB { get; set;} }

    Read the article

  • overflow-x AND Middle Mouse Button Moving

    - by Rad The Mad
    My Page is 980px in Width, but I have a few design elements (which belong with the background). I positioned them with position: absolute;. This creates a horizontal scrollbar for those who have a =< 1024 resolution. I disabled that scrollbar with overflow-x:hidden on (and for IE7 and etc). However, when I hold my middle mouse button,(i think this applies to laptop touchpads as well) it let's me move around to the right, is it possible to fix this with anything? (javascript, css)? Tested this issues in Chrome, IE, Firefox.

    Read the article

  • Doctrine: Relating a model to itself using a link table, like "This event is related to to the following other events"

    - by mattalexx
    So in English, the relationship would sound like "This event is related to to the following other events". My first instinct is to create an EventEvent model, with a first_event_id field and a second_event_id field. Then I would define the following two relationships in the Event model: $this->hasMany('Event as FirstRelatedEvents', array('local' => 'first_event_id', 'foreign' => 'second_event_id', 'refClass' => 'EventEvent')); $this->hasMany('Event as SecondRelatedEvents', array('local' => 'second_event_id', 'foreign' => 'first_event_id', 'refClass' => 'EventEvent')); But I would rather not have to use two relationships on the Event model. Is there a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • How to apply Abstract Factory Pattern ???

    - by Amit
    I am new to Design Pattern and I have a scenario here... and not sure as how to implement the pattern ... We have multiple vendors Philips, Onida... Each vendor (philips, onida...) may have different type of product i.e. Plasma or Normal TV I want specific product of each vendor using Abstract Factory Pattern... Thanks in advance for any help... My implementation so far... public enum TvType { Samsung = 0,LG = 1,Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { Plasma = 0,NormalTV = 1 } concrete class of each vendor.... that returns each product and also the interface that contains ProductInfo i.e. if Vendor is ... then it must have this product....

    Read the article

  • How to implement "drag n drop" user interface on website?

    - by Nikkeloodeni
    Hello, I was wondering what would be the best way to implement some kind of "drag n drop" user interface? What i mean is that there would be one main page and every link click (eg. other sections like about, gallery, contact form) would open a new drag n drop element on top of that main page. Something like windows desktop where you can move your application windows around the screen. Would it be best to call different functions with AJAX when a link is clicked? Like "gallery" link would call gallery-function and retrieve dynamically generated contents of that "window" with AJAX call and then just load that stuff on some div? Or would some other type of approach suit better for this? I hope I was able to explain this clearly enough. I'm looking for a proper "design pattern" to implement this. All suggestions are wellcome! :)

    Read the article

  • How to program a connection pool?

    - by the_drow
    Is there a known algorithm for implementing a connection pool? If not what are the known algorithms and what are their trade-offs? What design patterns are common when designing and programming a connection pool? Are there any code examples implement a connection pool using boost.asio? Is it a good idea to use a connection pool for presisting connections (not http)? How is threading related to connection pooling? When do you need a new thread?

    Read the article

  • DDD and Value Objects. Are mutable Value Objects a good candidate for Non Aggr. Root Entity?

    - by Tony
    Here is a little problem Have an entity, with a value object. Not a problem. I replace a value object for a new one, then nhibernate inserts the new value and orphan the old one, then deletes it. Ok, that's a problem. Insured is my entity in my domain. He has a collection of Addresses (value objects). One of the addresses is the MailingAddress. When we want to update the mailing address, let's say zipcode was wrong, following Mr. Evans doctrine, we must replace the old object for a new one since it's immutable (a value object right?). But we don't want to delete the row thou, because that address's PK is a FK in a MailingHistory table. So, following Mr. Evans doctrine, we are pretty much screwed here. Unless i make my addressses Entities, so i don't have to "replace" it, and simply update its zipcode member, like the old good days. What would you suggest me in this case? The way i see it, ValueObjects are only useful when you want to encapsulate a group of database table's columns (component in nhibernate). Everything that has a persistence id in the database, is better off to make it an Entity (not necessarily an aggregate root) so you can update its members without recreating the whole object graph, specially if that's a deep-nested object. Do you concur? Is it allowed by Mr. Evans to have a mutable value object? Or is a mutable value object a candidate for an Entity? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Question regarding factory pattern

    - by eriks
    I have a factory class to build objects of base class B. The object (D) that uses this factory received a list of strings representing the actual types. What is the correct implementation: the factory receives an Enum (and uses switch inside the Create function) and D is responsible to convert the string to Enum. the factory receives a string and checks for a match to a set of valid strings (using ifs') other implementation i didn't think of.

    Read the article

  • IT Optimization Plan Pays Off For UK Retailer

    - by Brian Dayton
    I caught this article in ComputerworldUK yesterday. The headline talks about UK-based supermarket chain Morrisons is increasing their IT spend...OK, sounds good. Even nicer that Oracle is a big part of that. But what caught my eye were three things: 1) Morrison's truly has a long term strategy for IT. In this case, modernizing and optimizing how they use IT for business advantage.   2) Even in a tough economic climate, Morrison's views IT investments as contributing to and improving the bottom line. Specifically, "The investment in IT contributed to a 21 percent increase in Morrison's underlying profit.."   3) The phased, 3-year "Optimization Plan" took a holistic approach to their business--from CRM and Supply Chain systems to the underlying application infrastructure. On the infrastructure front, adopting a more flexible Service-Oriented Architecture enabled them to be more agile and adapt their business and Identity Management helped with sometimes mundane (but costly) issues like lost passwords and being able to document who has access to what.   Things don't always turn out so rosy. And I know it was a long and difficult process...but it's nice to see a happy ending every once in a while.  

    Read the article

  • Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer valid?

    - by Brad
    I'm now doing a lot of SQL development at my new job where as before I was doing Object Oriented desktop app stuff. I keep running across very large scripts (thousands of lines) and wanting to refactor in some way. I am seeing that SQL is a different sort of beast and it's probably fine to have these big scripts for the most part but while explaining this to me people are also insisting that the whole idea of refactoring is bad. That stuff like the .NET compiler are actually burdened by refactored code and that a big wall of code is more efficient and better design than code designed for reuse, readability and scalability. The other argument is that OO compilers are almost dangerously inefficient and don't have efficient memory management or runs too many CPU instructions compared to older "simpler" compilers and compared to SQL. Are these valid complaints? Even if some compiler like a C compiler is modestly more "efficient" (whatever that means on this high of a level without seeing code) would you want to write applications in C over C# or Java? Is comparing an OO compiler to a SQL compiler/optimizer even valid?

    Read the article

  • IT Optimization Plan Pays Off For UK Retailer

    - by [email protected]
    I caught this article in ComputerworldUK yesterday. The headline talks about UK-based supermarket chain Morrisons is increasing their IT spend...OK, sounds good. Even nicer that Oracle is a big part of that. But what caught my eye were three things: 1) Morrison's truly has a long term strategy for IT. In this case, modernizing and optimizing how they use IT for business advantage. 2) Even in a tough economic climate, Morrison's views IT investments as contributing to and improving the bottom line. Specifically, "The investment in IT contributed to a 21 percent increase in Morrison's underlying profit.." 3) The phased, 3-year "Optimization Plan" took a holistic approach to their business--from CRM and Supply Chain systems to the underlying application infrastructure. On the infrastructure front, adopting a more flexible Service-Oriented Architecture enabled them to be more agile and adapt their business and Identity Management helped with sometimes mundane (but costly) issues like lost passwords and being able to document who has access to what. Things don't always turn out so rosy. And I know it was a long and difficult process...but it's nice to see a happy ending every once in a while.

    Read the article

  • Mocking concrete class - Not recommended

    - by Mik378
    I've just read an excerpt of "Growing Object-Oriented Software" book which explains some reasons why mocking concrete class is not recommended. Here some sample code of a unit-test for the MusicCentre class: public class MusicCentreTest { @Test public void startsCdPlayerAtTimeRequested() { final MutableTime scheduledTime = new MutableTime(); CdPlayer player = new CdPlayer() { @Override public void scheduleToStartAt(Time startTime) { scheduledTime.set(startTime); } } MusicCentre centre = new MusicCentre(player); centre.startMediaAt(LATER); assertEquals(LATER, scheduledTime.get()); } } And his first explanation: The problem with this approach is that it leaves the relationship between the objects implicit. I hope we've made clear by now that the intention of Test-Driven Development with Mock Objects is to discover relationships between objects. If I subclass, there's nothing in the domain code to make such a relationship visible, just methods on an object. This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I can't figure out exactly what he means when he says: This makes it harder to see if the service that supports this relationship might be relevant elsewhere and I'll have to do the analysis again next time I work with the class. I understand that the service corresponds to MusicCentre's method called startMediaAt. What does he mean by "elsewhere"? The complete excerpt is here: http://www.mockobjects.com/2007/04/test-smell-mocking-concrete-classes.html

    Read the article

  • How do you keep your business rules DRY?

    - by Mario
    I periodically ponder how to best design an application whose every business rule exists in just a single location. (While I know there is no proverbial “best way” and that designs are situational, people must have a leaning toward one practice or another.) I work for a shop where they prefer to house as much of the business rules as possible in the database. This requires developers in many cases to perform identical front-end validations to avoid sending data to the database that will result in an exception—not very DRY. It grates me anytime I find myself duplicating any kind of logic—even lowly validation logic. I am a single-point-of-truth purist to an anal degree. On the other end of the spectrum, I know of shops that create dumb databases (the Rails community leans in this direction) and handle all of the business logic in a separate tier (in Rails the models would house “most” of this). Note the word “most” which implies that some business logic does end up spilling into other places (in Rails it might spill over into the controllers). In way, a clean separation of concerns where all business logic exists in a single core location is a Utopian fantasy that’s hard to uphold (n-tiered architecture or not). Furthermore, is see the “Database as a fortress” and would agree that it should be built on constraints that cause it to reject bad data. As such, I hold principles that cause a degree of angst as I attempt to balance them. How do you balance the database-as-a-fortress view with the desire to have a single-point-of-truth?

    Read the article

  • Pros and cons of making database IDs consistent and "readable"

    - by gmale
    Question Is it a good rule of thumb for database IDs to be "meaningless?" Conversely, are there significant benefits from having IDs structured in a way where they can be recognized at a glance? What are the pros and cons? Background I just had a debate with my coworkers about the consistency of the IDs in our database. We have a data-driven application that leverages spring so that we rarely ever have to change code. That means, if there's a problem, a data change is usually the solution. My argument was that by making IDs consistent and readable, we save ourselves significant time and headaches, long term. Once the IDs are set, they don't have to change often and if done right, future changes won't be difficult. My coworkers position was that IDs should never matter. Encoding information into the ID violates DB design policies and keeping them orderly requires extra work that, "we don't have time for." I can't find anything online to support either position. So I'm turning to all the gurus here at SA! Example Imagine this simplified list of database records representing food in a grocery store, the first set represents data that has meaning encoded in the IDs, while the second does not: ID's with meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 101 Apple 102 Banana 103 Orange 201 Lettuce 202 Onion 203 Carrot Location 41 Aisle four top shelf 42 Aisle four bottom shelf 51 Aisle five top shelf 52 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 10141 Apple on aisle four top shelf 10241 Banana on aisle four top shelf //just by reading the ids, it's easy to recongnize that these are both Fruit on Aisle 4 ID's without meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 1 Apple 2 Banana 3 Orange 4 Lettuce 5 Onion 6 Carrot Location 1 Aisle four top shelf 2 Aisle four bottom shelf 3 Aisle five top shelf 4 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 1 Apple on aisle four top shelf 2 Banana on aisle four top shelf //given the IDs, it's harder to see that these are both fruit on aisle 4 Summary What are the pros and cons of keeping IDs readable and consistent? Which approach do you generally prefer and why? Is there an accepted industry best-practice?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for UI configuration

    - by TERACytE
    I have a Win32 C++ program that validates user input and updates the UI with status information and options. Currently it is written like this: void ShowError() { SetIcon(kError); SetMessageString("There was an error"); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } void ShowSuccess() { SetIcon(kError); std::String statusText (GetStatusText()); SetMessageString(statusText); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } // plus several more methods to update the UI using similar mechanisms I do not likes this because it duplicates code and causes me to update several methods if something changes in the UI. I am wondering if there is a design pattern or best practice to remove the duplication and make the functionality easier to understand and update. I could consolidate the code inside a config function and pass in flags to enable/disable UI items, but I am not convinced this is the best approach. Any suggestions and ideas?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >