Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 89/1642 | < Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >

  • Declaring and creating an object then adding to collection VS Adding object to collection using new

    - by ZeeMan
    Ok so the title may have been confusing so i have posted 2 code snippets to illustrate what i mean. NOTE: allUsers is just a collection. RegularUser regUser = new RegularUser(userName, password, name, emailAddress); allUsers.Add(regUser); VS allUsers.Add(new RegularUser(userName, password, name, emailAddress)); Which snippet A or B is better and why? What are the advantages or disadvantages? The example i wrote was C# but does the language (C#, Java etc) make a difference?

    Read the article

  • expand floating object when floating object within expands

    - by Scarface
    Hey guys, quick question, I have a link when clicked drops down a list. This list is floated to the right to position it properly. This list is in another box that has been floated. My problem is that when the list expands, the box does not and the list comes out of the container box, unless the list is not floated. However floating it seems like the only way to get it to the position I want. If anyone has any ideas on how to solve this problem I would appreciate it. .container-box { margin-top:0px; float:left; padding-left:5px; position:relative; } #box-within { float:right; font-weight:bold; max-height:250px; display: none; background-color:#fff; overflow: auto; width:325px; padding:5px; position:relative; }

    Read the article

  • save object associate to another object automatically

    - by Luca Romagnoli
    Hi i have these classes: class Core < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :resource, :polymorphic => true belongs_to :image, :class_name => 'Multimedia', :foreign_key => 'image_id' end class Place < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :core, :as => :resource end If i try do launch this: a = Place.find(5) a.name ="a" a.core.image_id = 24 a.save name is saved. image_id no i want save automatically all changes in records in relationship with place class at a.save command. is possible? thanks

    Read the article

  • Objective-C: alloc of object within init of another object (memory management)

    - by Stefan Klumpp
    In my .h file I have: NSMutableArray *myArray; @property (nonatomic, retain) NSMutableArray *myArray; My .m file looks basically like this: @synthesize myArray; - (id) init { self = [super init]; if (self != nil) { self.myArray = .... ? // here I want to create an empty array } return self; } - (void) dealloc { [self.myArray release]; [super dealloc]; } What I'm not sure about is what do to in the init. 1) self.myArray = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; 2) NSMutableArray *tmp = [[NSMutableArray alloc] init]; self.myArray = tmp; [tmp release]; Solution 1 doesn't seem right to me, because of my @property (retain) setting I automatically increase the retain counter when setting self.myArray, but additionally I have already a "+1 retain" due to the [NSMutableArray alloc]. Thus the second solution seems more correct to me, even though it is cumbersome. Also am I wondering if self.myArray = ... is actually the same as [self setMyArray:...] and thus does increase the retain count.

    Read the article

  • ruby hash to object - Parsing data from JSON object

    - by Leddo
    Hi all, I'm just starting to dabble in consuming a JSON webservice, and I am having a little trouble working out the best way to get to the actual data elements. I am receiving a response which has been converted into a ruby hash using the JSON.parse method. The hash looks like this: {"response"=>{"code"=>2002, "payload"=>{"topic"=>[{"name"=>"Topic Name", "url"=>"http://www.something.com/topic", "hero_image"=>{"image_id"=>"05rfbwV0Nggp8", "hero_image_id"=>"0d600BZ7MZgLJ", "hero_image_url"=>"http://img.something.com/imageserve/0d600BZ7MZgLJ/60x60.jpg"}, "type"=>"PERSON", "search_score"=>10.0, "topic_id"=>"0eG10W4e3Aapo"}]}, "message"=>"Success"}} What I would like to know, is what is the easiest way to get to the "topic" data so I can do something like: topic.name = json_resp.name topic.img = jsob_resp.hero_image_url etc Many thanks for any help you can offer. Regards Chris

    Read the article

  • C++ Type error with Object versus Object reference

    - by muddybruin
    I have the following function (which worked in Visual Studio): bool Plane::contains(Vector& point){ return normalVector.dotProduct(point - position) < -doubleResolution; } When I compile it using g++ version 4.1.2 , I get the following error: Plane.cpp: In member function âvirtual bool Plane::contains(Vector&)â: Plane.cpp:36: error: no matching function for call to âVector::dotProduct(Vector)â Vector.h:19: note: candidates are: double Vector::dotProduct(Vector&) So as you can see, the compiler thinks (point-position) is a Vector but it's expecting Vector&. What's the best way to fix this? I verified that this works: Vector temp = point-position; return normalVector.dotProduct(temp) < -doubleResolution; But I was hoping for something a little bit cleaner. I heard a suggestion that adding a copy constructor might help. So I added a copy constructor to Vector (see below), but it didn't help. Vector.h: Vector(const Vector& other); Vector.cpp: Vector::Vector(const Vector& other) :x(other.x), y(other.y), z(other.z), homogenous(other.homogenous) { }

    Read the article

  • When are Getters and Setters Justified

    - by Winston Ewert
    Getters and setters are often criticized as being not proper OO. On the other hand most OO code I've seen has extensive getters and setters. When are getters and setters justified? Do you try to avoid using them? Are they overused in general? If your favorite language has properties (mine does) then such things are also considered getters and setters for this question. They are same thing from an OO methodology perspective. They just have nicer syntax. Sources for Getter/Setter Criticism (some taken from comments to give them better visibility): http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-2003/jw-0905-toolbox.html http://typicalprogrammer.com/?p=23 http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AccessorsAreEvil http://www.darronschall.com/weblog/2005/03/no-brain-getter-and-setters.cfm http://www.adam-bien.com/roller/abien/entry/encapsulation_violation_with_getters_and To state the criticism simply: Getters and Setters allow you to manipulate the internal state of objects from outside of the object. This violates encapsulation. Only the object itself should care about its internal state. And an example Procedural version of code. struct Fridge { int cheese; } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.cheese += 5; } Mutator version of code: class Fridge { int cheese; void set_cheese(int _cheese) { cheese = _cheese; } int get_cheese() { return cheese; } } void go_shopping(Fridge fridge) { fridge.set_cheese(fridge.get_cheese() + 5); } The getters and setters made the code much more complicated without affording proper encapsulation. Because the internal state is accessible to other objects we don't gain a whole lot by adding these getters and setters. The question has been previously discussed on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/565095/java-are-getters-and-setters-evil http://stackoverflow.com/questions/996179

    Read the article

  • Is this kind of Design by Contract useless?

    - by Charlie Pigarelli
    I've just started informatics university and I'm attending a programming course about C(++). The programming professor prefers to teach very few things (in 3 month we have just reached the functions topic) and connect every topic with a type of programming design that somehow is similar to the Design by Contract design. Basically what he ask us to do is to write every exercise with comments Pre-conditions, Post-conditions and Invariants that should prove the correctness of each program we write. But this doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, ok: maybe writing down your thoughts prevent you from doing some mistakes, but if this is all an abstract thing, then if your program intuition is wrong you'll write your program wrong and then you'll also write pre and post conditions wrong probably auto convincing your self about its correctness. Most of the time, both me and other students have written programs that seemed ok and that had correct pre and post condition too. But at the moment of testing it was just completely wrong. I had some experience before this course of programming and I had written a lot of line of code before and I found myself comfortably with just writing a program and unit test it. It take less time to accomplish and is less "abstract" than just thinking about what every single piece of your program should do in every case (which is kinda like mentally testing it). Finally, all this pre and post conditions takes me like 80% of the total time of the exercise. It's harder to think about putting down this pre and post correct than to write the program itself. Since we are like the only course of the only university probably in the entire world that makes this things, could someone please tell me how should I manage this thing? Am I right thinking that this doesn't worth anything? Should I change university? (there are like double of the people attending that course and it seems that usually very few people passes the exam the first year). Should I convince myself it's method is right?

    Read the article

  • How should an object that uses composition set its composed components?

    - by Casey
    After struggling with various problems and reading up on component-based systems and reading Bob Nystrom's excellent book "Game Programming Patterns" and in particular the chapter on Components I determined that this is a horrible idea: //Class intended to be inherited by all objects. Engine uses Objects exclusively. class Object : public IUpdatable, public IDrawable { public: Object(); Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; virtual void SetBody(const RigidBodyDef& body); virtual const RigidBody* GetBody() const; virtual RigidBody* GetBody(); //Inherited from IUpdatable virtual void Update(double deltaTime); //Inherited from IDrawable virtual void Draw(BITMAP* dest); protected: private: }; I'm attempting to refactor it into a more manageable system. Mr. Nystrom uses the constructor to set the individual components; CHANGING these components at run-time is impossible. It's intended to be derived and be used in derivative classes or factory methods where their constructors do not change at run-time. i.e. his Bjorne object is just a call to a factory method with a specific call to the GameObject constructor. Is this a good idea? Should the object have a default constructor and setters to facilitate run-time changes or no default constructor without setters and instead use a factory method? Given: class Object { public: //...See below for constructor implementation concerns. Object(const Object& other); Object& operator=(const Object& rhs); virtual ~Object() =0; //See below for Setter concerns IUpdatable* GetUpdater(); IDrawable* GetRenderer(); protected: IUpdatable* _updater; IDrawable* _renderer; private: }; Should the components be read-only and passed in to the constructor via: class Object { public: //No default constructor. Object(IUpdatable* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or Should a default constructor be provided and then the components can be set at run-time? class Object { public: Object(); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... }; or both? class Object { public: Object(); Object(IUpdater* updater, IDrawable* renderer); //... SetUpdater(IUpdater* updater); SetRenderer(IDrawable* renderer); //...remainder is same as above... };

    Read the article

  • How do I handle specific tile/object collisions?

    - by Thomas William Cannady
    What do I do after the bounding box test against a tile to determine whether there is a real collision against the contents of that tile? And if there is, how should I move the object in response to that collision? I have a small object, and test for collisions against the tiles that each corner of it is on. Here's my current code, which I run for each of those (up to) four tiles: // get the bounding box of the object, in world space objectBounds = object->bounds + object->position; if ( (objectBounds.right >= tileBounds.left) && (objectBounds.left <= tileBounds.right) && (objectBounds.top >= tileBounds.bottom) && (objectBounds.bottom <= tileBounds.top)) { // perform specific test to see if it's a left, top , bottom // or right collision. If so, I check to see the nature of it // and where I need to place the object to respond to that collision... // [THIS IS THE PART THAT NEEDS WORK] // if( lastkey==keydown[right] && ((objectBounds.right >= tileBounds.left) && (objectBounds.right <= tileBounds.right) && (objectBounds.bottom >= tileBounds.bottom) && (objectBounds.bottom <= tileBounds.top)) ) { object->position.x = tileBounds.left - objectBounds.width; } // etc.

    Read the article

  • The Endeca UI Design Pattern Library Returns

    - by Joe Lamantia
    I'm happy to announce that the Endeca UI Design Pattern Library - now titled the Endeca Discovery Pattern Library - is once again providing guidance and good practices on the design of discovery experiences.  Launched publicly in 2010 following several years of internal development and usage, the Endeca Pattern Library is a unique and valued source of industry-leading perspective on discovery - something I've come to appreciate directly through  fielding the consistent stream of inquiries about the library's status, and requests for its rapid return to public availability. Restoring the library as a public resource is only the first step!  For the next stage of the library's evolution, we plan to increase the scope of the guidance it offers beyond user interface design to the broader topic of discovery.  This could include patterns for architecture at the systems, user experience, and business levels; information and process models; analytical method and activity patterns for conducting discovery; and organizational and resource patterns for provisioning discovery capability in different settings.  We'd like guidance from the community on the kinds of patterns that are most valuable - so make sure to let us know. And we're also considering ways to increase the number of patterns the library offers, possibly by expanding the set of contributors and the authoring mechanisms. If you'd like to contribute, please get in touch. Here's the new address of the library: http://www.oracle.com/goto/EndecaDiscoveryPatterns And I should say 'Many thanks' to the UXDirect team and all the others within the Oracle family who helped - literally - keep the library alive, and restore it as a public resource.

    Read the article

  • Software design of a browser-based strategic MMO game

    - by Mehran
    I wonder if there are any known tested software designs for Travian-like browser-based strategic MMO games? I mean how would they implement the server of such games or what is stored in database and what is stored in RAM? Is the state of the world stored in one piece or is it distributed among a number of storage? Does anyone know a resource to study the problems and solutions of creating such games? [UPDATE] Suggested in comments, I'm going to give an example how would I design such a project. Even though I'm not sure if I'm proposing the right one. Having stored the world state in a MongoDB, I would implement an event collection in which all the changes to the world will register. Changes that are meant to happen in the future will come with an action date set to the future and those that are to be carried out immediately will be set to now. Having this datastore as the central point of the system, players will issue their actions as events inserted in datastore. At the other end of the system, I'll have a constant-running software taking out events out of the datastore which are due to be carried out and not done yet. Executing an event means apply some update on the world's state and thus the datastore. As scalable as this design sounds, I'm not sure if it will be worth implementing. For one, it is pointless to cache the datastore as most of updates happen once without any follow ups. For instance if you have the growth of resources in your game, you'll be updating the whole world state periodically in which case, having incorporated a cache, you are keeping the whole world in RAM (which most likely is impossible). So can someone come up with a better design?

    Read the article

  • Good design for a simple site that contains a blog

    - by bporter
    What is a good design for a simple web site with mostly static pages and a blog? I am helping a friend build this for their small business. We are looking for a simple approach that can be implemented fairly quickly. (I am a programmer and can help with coding, hosting, etc.) One option is to use a site like virb, which lets you choose from one of their themes and build a site pretty easily. You can also include a blog. They host the site for a pretty low monthly rate. I recommended this option, but my friend wants a design that is unique and custom. So, I took one of the themes and started modifying the HTML and CSS. This might still be a good option, but... ...If we are going to greatly modify it, why not just create the static pages from scratch and use something like Wordpress for the blog. Is this a good option? It looks fairly easy to integrate Wordpress with a site so that the design and behavior are really cohesive. Is this a good idea? Do you recommend any other approaches?

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

  • Plug-in based software design

    - by gekod
    I'm a software developer who is willing to improve his software design skills. I think software should not only work but have a solid and elegant design too to be reusable and extensive to later purposes. Now I'm in search of some help figuring out good practices for specific problems. Actually, I'm trying to find out how to design a piece of software that would be extensible via plug-ins. The questions I have are the following: Should plug-ins be able to access each others functionality? This would bring dependencies I guess. What should the main application offer to the plug-ins if I want to let's say develop a multimedia software which would play videos and music but which could later on get functionality added over plug-ins that would let's say be able to read video status (time, bps, ...) and display it. Would this mean that the player itself would have to be part of the main program and offer services to plug-ins to get such information or would there be a way to develop the player as a plug-in also but offer in some way the possibility to other plug-ins to interact with it? As you see, my questions are mainly for learning purposes as I strive to improve my software development skills. I hope to find help here and apologize if something is wrong with my question.

    Read the article

  • An ideal way to decode JSON documents in C?

    - by AzizAG
    Assuming I have an API to consume that uses JSON as a data transmission method, what is an ideal way to decode the JSON returned by each API resource? For example, in Java I'd create a class for each API resource then initiate an object of that class and consume data from it. for example: class UserJson extends JsonParser { public function UserJson(String document) { /*Initial document parsing goes here...*/ } //A bunch of getter methods . . . . } The probably do something like this: UserJson userJson = new UserJson(jsonString);//Initial parsing goes in the constructor String username = userJson.getName();//Parse JSON name property then return it as a String. Or when using a programming language with associative arrays(i.e., hash table) the decoding process doesn't require creating a class: (PHP) $userJson = json_decode($jsonString);//Decode JSON as key=>value $username = $userJson['name']; But, when I'm programming in procedural programming languages (C), I can't go with either method, since C is neither OOP nor supports associative arrays(by default, at least). What is the "correct" method of parsing pre-defined JSON strings(i.e., JSON documents specified by the API provider via examples or documentation)? The method I'm currently using is creating a file for each API resource to parse, the problem with this method is that it's basically a lousy version of the OOP method, as it looks exactly like the OOP method but doesn't provide any OOP benefits(e.g., can't pass an object of the parser, etc.). I've been thinking about encapsulating each API resource parser file in a publicly accessed structure(pointing all functions/publicly usable variables to the structure) then accessing the parser file code from within the structure(parser.parse(), parser.getName(), etc.). As this way looks a bit better than the my current method, it still just a rip off the OOP way, isn't it? Any suggestions for methods to parse JSON documents on procedural programming lanauges? Any comments on the methods I'm currently using(either 3 of them)?

    Read the article

  • Balancing dependency injection with public API design

    - by kolektiv
    I've been contemplating how to balance testable design using dependency injection with providing simple fixed public API. My dilemma is: people would want to do something like var server = new Server(){ ... } and not have to worry about creating the many dependencies and graph of dependencies that a Server(,,,,,,) may have. While developing, I don't worry too much, as I use an IoC/DI framework to handle all that (I'm not using the lifecycle management aspects of any container, which would complicate things further). Now, the dependencies are unlikely to be re-implemented. Componentisation in this case is almost purely for testability (and decent design!) rather than creating seams for extension, etc. People will 99.999% of the time wish to use a default configuration. So. I could hardcode the dependencies. Don't want to do that, we lose our testing! I could provide a default constructor with hard-coded dependencies and one which takes dependencies. That's... messy, and likely to be confusing, but viable. I could make the dependency receiving constructor internal and make my unit tests a friend assembly (assuming C#), which tidies the public API but leaves a nasty hidden trap lurking for maintenance. Having two constructors which are implicitly connected rather than explicitly would be bad design in general in my book. At the moment that's about the least evil I can think of. Opinions? Wisdom?

    Read the article

  • A fix for the design time error in MVVM Light V4.1

    - by Laurent Bugnion
    For those of you who installed V4.1 of MVVM Light and created a project for Windows Phone 8, you will have noticed an error showing up in the design surface (either in Visual Studio designer, or in Expression Blend). The error says: “Could not load type ‘System.ComponentModel.INotifyPropertyChanging’ from assembly ‘mscorlib.extensions’” with additional information about version numbers. The error is caused by an incompatibility between versions of System.Windows.Interactivity. Because this assembly is strongly named, any version incompatibility is causing the kind of error shown here (for an interesting discussion on the strong naming issue, see this thread on Codeplex). I managed to resolve the issue for Windows Phone 8 and will publish a cleaned up installer next week. In the mean time, in order to allow you to continue development, please follow the steps: Download the new DLLs zip package (MVVMLight_V4_1_25_WP8). Right click on the Zip file and select Properties from the context menu. Press the “Unblock” button (if available) and then OK. Right click again on the zip package and select “Extract all…”. Select a known location for the new DLLs. Open the MVVM Light project with the design time error in Visual Studio 2012. Open the References folder in the Solution Explorer. Select the following DLLs: GalaSoft.MvvmLight.dll, GalaSoft.MvvmLight.Extras.dll, Microsoft.Practices.ServiceLocation.dll and System.Windows.Interactivity.dll. Press “delete” and confirm to remove the DLLs from your project. Right click on References and select Add Reference from the context menu. Browse to the folder with the new DLLs. Select the four new DLLs and press OK. Rebuild your application, and open it again in Blend or in the Visual Studio designer. The error should be gone now. In the next few days, as time allows, I will publish a new MSI containing a fixed version of the DLLs as well as a few other improvements. This quick fix should however allow you to continue working on your Windows Phone 8 projects in design mode too.   Laurent Bugnion (GalaSoft) Subscribe | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | LinkedIn

    Read the article

  • Unity Problem with colliding instances of same object

    - by Kuba Sienkiewicz
    I want to check if object's instance is overlapping with another instance (any spawned object with another spawned object, not necessary the same object). I'm doing this by detecting collisions between bodies. But I have a problem. Spawned object (instances) are detecting collision with everything but other spawned objects. I've checked collision layers etc. All of spawned objects have rigidbodies and mesh colliders. Also when I attach my script to another body and I touch that body with an instanced object it detects collision. So problem is visible only in collision between spawned objects. And one more information I have script, rigid body and collider attached to child of main object. using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; public class CantPlace : MonoBehaviour { public bool collided = false; // Use this for initialization void Start () { } // Update is called once per frame void Update () { //Debug.Log (collided); } void OnTriggerEnter(Collider collider) { //if (true) { //foreach (Transform child in this.transform) { // if (child.name == "Cylinder") { //collided = true; Color c; c = this.renderer.material.color; c.g = 0f; c.b = 1f; c.r = 0f; this.renderer.material.color = c; Debug.Log (collider.name); //} // } //} //foreach (ContactPoint contact in collision.contacts) { // Debug.DrawRay(contact.point, contact.normal, Color.red,15f); // } } }

    Read the article

  • Website Design; SEO Dilemma

    - by lemonpole
    Okay so I designed a website for a restaurant and the design is aimed mostly to entice the viewer by using images of the restaurant's platters and foods. Not to say that text is totally non-existent but the design makes it hard to have enough keywords. Most keywords are found in the ALT attribute of image tags and a couple of headers. The reason as to why I am in this dilemma? I'm still new to web development and at the time I made the design, I didn't really know much about SEO. So I come here in search of help because I have an idea... Would it be good practice to have hidden SPAN blocks that would help me fill with keywords? For example a hidden SPAN would have text in bold to help with SEO. Of course, I will play it safe and not exploit this technique if it works. I have searched that this may be considered spamming by search engines and some companies are taking measures to prevent this. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • European e-government Action Plan all about interoperability

    - by trond-arne.undheim
    Yesterday, the European Commission released its European eGovernment Action Plan for 2011-2015. The plan includes measures on providing deeper user empowerment, enhancing the Internal Market, more efficiency and effectiveness of public administrations, and putting in place pre-conditions for developing e-government. The Good - Defines interoperability very clearly. Calls interoperability "a pre-condition for cross-border eGovernment services" (a very strong formulation) and says interoperability "is supported by open specifications". - Uses the terminology "open specifications" which, let's face it, is pretty close to "open standards" which is the term the rest of the world would use. - Confirms that Member States are fully committed to the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration (which was all about open standards) including the very strong action: by 2013: All Member States will have incorporated the political priorities of the Malmö Declaration in their national strategies. Such tight Action Plan integration between Commission and Member State priorities has seldom been attempted before, particularly not in a field where European legal competence is virtually non-existent. What we see now, is the subtle force of soft power rather than the rough force of regulation. In this case, it is the Member States who want Europe to take the lead. Very refreshing! Some quotes that show the commitment to interoperability and open specifications: "The emergence of innovative technologies such as "service-oriented architectures" (SOA), or "clouds" of services,  together with more open specifications which allow for greater sharing, re-use and interoperability reinforce the ability of ICT to play a key role in this quest for effficiency in the public sector." (p.4) "Interoperability is supported through open specifications" (p.13) 2.4.1. Open Specifications and Interoperability (p.13 has a whole section dedicated to this important topic. Open specifications and interoperability are nearly 100% interrelated): "Interoperability is the ability of systems and machines to exchange, process and correctly interpret information. It is more than just a technical challenge, as it also involves legal, organisational and semantic aspects of handling  data" (p.13) "standards and  open platforms offer opportunities for more cost-effective use of resources and delivery of services" (p.13). The Bad Shies away from defining open standards, or even open specifications, the EU's preferred term for the key enabler of interoperability. Verdict 90/100, a very respectable score.

    Read the article

  • Designing persistence schema for BigTable on AppEngine

    - by Vitalij Zadneprovskij
    I have tried to design the datastore schema for a very small application. That schema would have been very simple, if not trivial, using a relational database with foreign keys, many-to-many relations, joins, etc. But the problem was that my application was targeted for Google App Engine and I had to design for a database that was not relational. At the end I gave up. Is there a book or an article that describes design principles for applications that are meant for such databases? The books that I have found are about programming for App Engine and they don't spend many words about database design principles.

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use "plain old data" classes?

    - by Michael
    In legacy code I occasionally see classes that are nothing but wrappers for data. something like: class Bottle { int height; int diameter; Cap capType; getters/setters, maybe a constructor } My understanding of OO is that classes are structures for data and the methods of operating on that data. This seems to preclude objects of this type. To me they are nothing more than structs and kind of defeat the purpose of OO. I don't think it's necessarily evil, though it may be a code smell. Is there a case where such objects would be necessary? If this is used often, does it make the design suspect?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >