Search Results

Search found 12107 results on 485 pages for 'pinned objects'.

Page 89/485 | < Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >

  • Unity3d Gravity script issues

    - by Joseph Le Brech
    I'm try this script out http://wiki.unity3d.com/index.php/Gravity and I'm having some issues with it (it seemed to work when I tried it with an old version of unity) the first issue is of collision, the objects (in my case spheres) will stick into each other rather than just touch. and the second is that when the objects collide one of the objects with continue it's trajectory. I'm thinking of rewriting the script from scratch unless someone can explain what's wrong with the script that i've got.

    Read the article

  • ODI 11g – Insight to the SDK

    - by David Allan
    This post is a useful index into the ODI SDK that cross references the type names from the user interface with the SDK class and also the finder for how to get a handle on the object or objects. The volume of content in the SDK might seem a little ominous, there is a lot there, but there is a general pattern to the SDK that I will describe here. Also I will illustrate some basic CRUD operations so you can see how the SDK usage pattern works. The examples are written in groovy, you can simply run from the groovy console in ODI 11.1.1.6. Entry to the Platform   Object Finder SDK odiInstance odiInstance (groovy variable for console) OdiInstance Topology Objects Object Finder SDK Technology IOdiTechnologyFinder OdiTechnology Context IOdiContextFinder OdiContext Logical Schema IOdiLogicalSchemaFinder OdiLogicalSchema Data Server IOdiDataServerFinder OdiDataServer Physical Schema IOdiPhysicalSchemaFinder OdiPhysicalSchema Logical Schema to Physical Mapping IOdiContextualSchemaMappingFinder OdiContextualSchemaMapping Logical Agent IOdiLogicalAgentFinder OdiLogicalAgent Physical Agent IOdiPhysicalAgentFinder OdiPhysicalAgent Logical Agent to Physical Mapping IOdiContextualAgentMappingFinder OdiContextualAgentMapping Master Repository IOdiMasterRepositoryInfoFinder OdiMasterRepositoryInfo Work Repository IOdiWorkRepositoryInfoFinder OdiWorkRepositoryInfo Project Objects Object Finder SDK Project IOdiProjectFinder OdiProject Folder IOdiFolderFinder OdiFolder Interface IOdiInterfaceFinder OdiInterface Package IOdiPackageFinder OdiPackage Procedure IOdiUserProcedureFinder OdiUserProcedure User Function IOdiUserFunctionFinder OdiUserFunction Variable IOdiVariableFinder OdiVariable Sequence IOdiSequenceFinder OdiSequence KM IOdiKMFinder OdiKM Load Plans and Scenarios   Object Finder SDK Load Plan IOdiLoadPlanFinder OdiLoadPlan Load Plan and Scenario Folder IOdiScenarioFolderFinder OdiScenarioFolder Model Objects Object Finder SDK Model IOdiModelFinder OdiModel Sub Model IOdiSubModel OdiSubModel DataStore IOdiDataStoreFinder OdiDataStore Column IOdiColumnFinder OdiColumn Key IOdiKeyFinder OdiKey Condition IOdiConditionFinder OdiCondition Operator Objects   Object Finder SDK Session Folder IOdiSessionFolderFinder OdiSessionFolder Session IOdiSessionFinder OdiSession Schedule OdiSchedule How to Create an Object? Here is a simple example to create a project, it uses IOdiEntityManager.persist to persist the object. import oracle.odi.domain.project.OdiProject; import oracle.odi.core.persistence.transaction.support.DefaultTransactionDefinition; txnDef = new DefaultTransactionDefinition(); tm = odiInstance.getTransactionManager() txnStatus = tm.getTransaction(txnDef) project = new OdiProject("Project For Demo", "PROJECT_DEMO") odiInstance.getTransactionalEntityManager().persist(project) tm.commit(txnStatus) How to Update an Object? This update example uses the methods on the OdiProject object to change the project’s name that was created above, it is then persisted. import oracle.odi.domain.project.OdiProject; import oracle.odi.domain.project.finder.IOdiProjectFinder; import oracle.odi.core.persistence.transaction.support.DefaultTransactionDefinition; txnDef = new DefaultTransactionDefinition(); tm = odiInstance.getTransactionManager() txnStatus = tm.getTransaction(txnDef) prjFinder = (IOdiProjectFinder)odiInstance.getTransactionalEntityManager().getFinder(OdiProject.class); project = prjFinder.findByCode("PROJECT_DEMO"); project.setName("A Demo Project"); odiInstance.getTransactionalEntityManager().persist(project) tm.commit(txnStatus) How to Delete an Object? Here is a simple example to delete all of the sessions, it uses IOdiEntityManager.remove to delete the object. import oracle.odi.domain.runtime.session.finder.IOdiSessionFinder; import oracle.odi.domain.runtime.session.OdiSession; import oracle.odi.core.persistence.transaction.support.DefaultTransactionDefinition; txnDef = new DefaultTransactionDefinition(); tm = odiInstance.getTransactionManager() txnStatus = tm.getTransaction(txnDef) sessFinder = (IOdiSessionFinder)odiInstance.getTransactionalEntityManager().getFinder(OdiSession.class); sessc = sessFinder.findAll(); sessItr = sessc.iterator() while (sessItr.hasNext()) {   sess = (OdiSession) sessItr.next()   odiInstance.getTransactionalEntityManager().remove(sess) } tm.commit(txnStatus) This isn't an all encompassing summary of the SDK, but covers a lot of the content to give you a good handle on the objects and how they work. For details of how specific complex objects are created via the SDK, its best to look at postings such as the interface builder posting here. Have fun, happy coding!

    Read the article

  • Oracle BI Server Modeling, Part 1- Designing a Query Factory

    - by bob.ertl(at)oracle.com
      Welcome to Oracle BI Development's BI Foundation blog, focused on helping you get the most value from your Oracle Business Intelligence Enterprise Edition (BI EE) platform deployments.  In my first series of posts, I plan to show developers the concepts and best practices for modeling in the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM), the semantic layer of Oracle BI EE.  In this segment, I will lay the groundwork for the modeling concepts.  First, I will cover the big picture of how the BI Server fits into the system, and how the CEIM controls the query processing. Oracle BI EE Query Cycle The purpose of the Oracle BI Server is to bridge the gap between the presentation services and the data sources.  There are typically a variety of data sources in a variety of technologies: relational, normalized transaction systems; relational star-schema data warehouses and marts; multidimensional analytic cubes and financial applications; flat files, Excel files, XML files, and so on. Business datasets can reside in a single type of source, or, most of the time, are spread across various types of sources. Presentation services users are generally business people who need to be able to query that set of sources without any knowledge of technologies, schemas, or how sources are organized in their company. They think of business analysis in terms of measures with specific calculations, hierarchical dimensions for breaking those measures down, and detailed reports of the business transactions themselves.  Most of them create queries without knowing it, by picking a dashboard page and some filters.  Others create their own analysis by selecting metrics and dimensional attributes, and possibly creating additional calculations. The BI Server bridges that gap from simple business terms to technical physical queries by exposing just the business focused measures and dimensional attributes that business people can use in their analyses and dashboards.   After they make their selections and start the analysis, the BI Server plans the best way to query the data sources, writes the optimized sequence of physical queries to those sources, post-processes the results, and presents them to the client as a single result set suitable for tables, pivots and charts. The CEIM is a model that controls the processing of the BI Server.  It provides the subject areas that presentation services exposes for business users to select simplified metrics and dimensional attributes for their analysis.  It models the mappings to the physical data access, the calculations and logical transformations, and the data access security rules.  The CEIM consists of metadata stored in the repository, authored by developers using the Administration Tool client.     Presentation services and other query clients create their queries in BI EE's SQL-92 language, called Logical SQL or LSQL.  The API simply uses ODBC or JDBC to pass the query to the BI Server.  Presentation services writes the LSQL query in terms of the simplified objects presented to the users.  The BI Server creates a query plan, and rewrites the LSQL into fully-detailed SQL or other languages suitable for querying the physical sources.  For example, the LSQL on the left below was rewritten into the physical SQL for an Oracle 11g database on the right. Logical SQL   Physical SQL SELECT "D0 Time"."T02 Per Name Month" saw_0, "D4 Product"."P01  Product" saw_1, "F2 Units"."2-01  Billed Qty  (Sum All)" saw_2 FROM "Sample Sales" ORDER BY saw_0, saw_1       WITH SAWITH0 AS ( select T986.Per_Name_Month as c1, T879.Prod_Dsc as c2,      sum(T835.Units) as c3, T879.Prod_Key as c4 from      Product T879 /* A05 Product */ ,      Time_Mth T986 /* A08 Time Mth */ ,      FactsRev T835 /* A11 Revenue (Billed Time Join) */ where ( T835.Prod_Key = T879.Prod_Key and T835.Bill_Mth = T986.Row_Wid) group by T879.Prod_Dsc, T879.Prod_Key, T986.Per_Name_Month ) select SAWITH0.c1 as c1, SAWITH0.c2 as c2, SAWITH0.c3 as c3 from SAWITH0 order by c1, c2   Probably everybody reading this blog can write SQL or MDX.  However, the trick in designing the CEIM is that you are modeling a query-generation factory.  Rather than hand-crafting individual queries, you model behavior and relationships, thus configuring the BI Server machinery to manufacture millions of different queries in response to random user requests.  This mass production requires a different mindset and approach than when you are designing individual SQL statements in tools such as Oracle SQL Developer, Oracle Hyperion Interactive Reporting (formerly Brio), or Oracle BI Publisher.   The Structure of the Common Enterprise Information Model (CEIM) The CEIM has a unique structure specifically for modeling the relationships and behaviors that fill the gap from logical user requests to physical data source queries and back to the result.  The model divides the functionality into three specialized layers, called Presentation, Business Model and Mapping, and Physical, as shown below. Presentation services clients can generally only see the presentation layer, and the objects in the presentation layer are normally the only ones used in the LSQL request.  When a request comes into the BI Server from presentation services or another client, the relationships and objects in the model allow the BI Server to select the appropriate data sources, create a query plan, and generate the physical queries.  That's the left to right flow in the diagram below.  When the results come back from the data source queries, the right to left relationships in the model show how to transform the results and perform any final calculations and functions that could not be pushed down to the databases.   Business Model Think of the business model as the heart of the CEIM you are designing.  This is where you define the analytic behavior seen by the users, and the superset library of metric and dimension objects available to the user community as a whole.  It also provides the baseline business-friendly names and user-readable dictionary.  For these reasons, it is often called the "logical" model--it is a virtual database schema that persists no data, but can be queried as if it is a database. The business model always has a dimensional shape (more on this in future posts), and its simple shape and terminology hides the complexity of the source data models. Besides hiding complexity and normalizing terminology, this layer adds most of the analytic value, as well.  This is where you define the rich, dimensional behavior of the metrics and complex business calculations, as well as the conformed dimensions and hierarchies.  It contributes to the ease of use for business users, since the dimensional metric definitions apply in any context of filters and drill-downs, and the conformed dimensions enable dashboard-wide filters and guided analysis links that bring context along from one page to the next.  The conformed dimensions also provide a key to hiding the complexity of many sources, including federation of different databases, behind the simple business model. Note that the expression language in this layer is LSQL, so that any expression can be rewritten into any data source's query language at run time.  This is important for federation, where a given logical object can map to several different physical objects in different databases.  It is also important to portability of the CEIM to different database brands, which is a key requirement for Oracle's BI Applications products. Your requirements process with your user community will mostly affect the business model.  This is where you will define most of the things they specifically ask for, such as metric definitions.  For this reason, many of the best-practice methodologies of our consulting partners start with the high-level definition of this layer. Physical Model The physical model connects the business model that meets your users' requirements to the reality of the data sources you have available. In the query factory analogy, think of the physical layer as the bill of materials for generating physical queries.  Every schema, table, column, join, cube, hierarchy, etc., that will appear in any physical query manufactured at run time must be modeled here at design time. Each physical data source will have its own physical model, or "database" object in the CEIM.  The shape of each physical model matches the shape of its physical source.  In other words, if the source is normalized relational, the physical model will mimic that normalized shape.  If it is a hypercube, the physical model will have a hypercube shape.  If it is a flat file, it will have a denormalized tabular shape. To aid in query optimization, the physical layer also tracks the specifics of the database brand and release.  This allows the BI Server to make the most of each physical source's distinct capabilities, writing queries in its syntax, and using its specific functions. This allows the BI Server to push processing work as deep as possible into the physical source, which minimizes data movement and takes full advantage of the database's own optimizer.  For most data sources, native APIs are used to further optimize performance and functionality. The value of having a distinct separation between the logical (business) and physical models is encapsulation of the physical characteristics.  This encapsulation is another enabler of packaged BI applications and federation.  It is also key to hiding the complex shapes and relationships in the physical sources from the end users.  Consider a routine drill-down in the business model: physically, it can require a drill-through where the first query is MDX to a multidimensional cube, followed by the drill-down query in SQL to a normalized relational database.  The only difference from the user's point of view is that the 2nd query added a more detailed dimension level column - everything else was the same. Mappings Within the Business Model and Mapping Layer, the mappings provide the binding from each logical column and join in the dimensional business model, to each of the objects that can provide its data in the physical layer.  When there is more than one option for a physical source, rules in the mappings are applied to the query context to determine which of the data sources should be hit, and how to combine their results if more than one is used.  These rules specify aggregate navigation, vertical partitioning (fragmentation), and horizontal partitioning, any of which can be federated across multiple, heterogeneous sources.  These mappings are usually the most sophisticated part of the CEIM. Presentation You might think of the presentation layer as a set of very simple relational-like views into the business model.  Over ODBC/JDBC, they present a relational catalog consisting of databases, tables and columns.  For business users, presentation services interprets these as subject areas, folders and columns, respectively.  (Note that in 10g, subject areas were called presentation catalogs in the CEIM.  In this blog, I will stick to 11g terminology.)  Generally speaking, presentation services and other clients can query only these objects (there are exceptions for certain clients such as BI Publisher and Essbase Studio). The purpose of the presentation layer is to specialize the business model for different categories of users.  Based on a user's role, they will be restricted to specific subject areas, tables and columns for security.  The breakdown of the model into multiple subject areas organizes the content for users, and subjects superfluous to a particular business role can be hidden from that set of users.  Customized names and descriptions can be used to override the business model names for a specific audience.  Variables in the object names can be used for localization. For these reasons, you are better off thinking of the tables in the presentation layer as folders than as strict relational tables.  The real semantics of tables and how they function is in the business model, and any grouping of columns can be included in any table in the presentation layer.  In 11g, an LSQL query can also span multiple presentation subject areas, as long as they map to the same business model. Other Model Objects There are some objects that apply to multiple layers.  These include security-related objects, such as application roles, users, data filters, and query limits (governors).  There are also variables you can use in parameters and expressions, and initialization blocks for loading their initial values on a static or user session basis.  Finally, there are Multi-User Development (MUD) projects for developers to check out units of work, and objects for the marketing feature used by our packaged customer relationship management (CRM) software.   The Query Factory At this point, you should have a grasp on the query factory concept.  When developing the CEIM model, you are configuring the BI Server to automatically manufacture millions of queries in response to random user requests. You do this by defining the analytic behavior in the business model, mapping that to the physical data sources, and exposing it through the presentation layer's role-based subject areas. While configuring mass production requires a different mindset than when you hand-craft individual SQL or MDX statements, it builds on the modeling and query concepts you already understand. The following posts in this series will walk through the CEIM modeling concepts and best practices in detail.  We will initially review dimensional concepts so you can understand the business model, and then present a pattern-based approach to learning the mappings from a variety of physical schema shapes and deployments to the dimensional model.  Along the way, we will also present the dimensional calculation template, and learn how to configure the many additivity patterns.

    Read the article

  • ETPM/OUAF 2.3.1 Framework Overview - Session 1

    - by MHundal
    A number of sessions are planned to review the ETPM (OUAF) 2.3.1 Framework.  These sessions will include an overview of the Navigation, Portals, Zones, Business Objects, Business Services, Algorithms, Scripts, etc.. Session 1 includes an overview of the standards in ETPM 2.3.1 Navigation and changes in the configuration and options for Portals and Zones.  Session 1 starts to look at the configuration of Business Objects.  The next session will provide an in-depth explanation for the configuration of Business Objects.  Click on the link below for Session 1 (45 minutes) that provides an overview of the changes in Navigation, general standards, changes in Portals/Zones configuration and a high-level overview of Business Objects. To stream the recording:   https://oracletalk.webex.com/oracletalk/ldr.php?AT=pb&SP=MC&rID=70387157&rKey=f791a7285affeb25 To download the recording: https://oracletalk.webex.com/oracletalk/lsr.php?AT=dw&SP=MC&rID=70387157&rKey=0be61590fd72d20e For additional questions, please contact [email protected].

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Class Patterns

    - by Liam McLennan
    To write object-oriented programs we need objects, and likely lots of them. JavaScript makes it easy to create objects: var liam = { name: "Liam", age: Number.MAX_VALUE }; But JavaScript does not provide an easy way to create similar objects. Most object-oriented languages include the idea of a class, which is a template for creating objects of the same type. From one class many similar objects can be instantiated. Many patterns have been proposed to address the absence of a class concept in JavaScript. This post will compare and contrast the most significant of them. Simple Constructor Functions Classes may be missing but JavaScript does support special constructor functions. By prefixing a call to a constructor function with the ‘new’ keyword we can tell the JavaScript runtime that we want the function to behave like a constructor and instantiate a new object containing the members defined by that function. Within a constructor function the ‘this’ keyword references the new object being created -  so a basic constructor function might be: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; this.toString = function() { return this.name + " is " + age + " years old."; }; } var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that by convention the name of a constructor function is always written in Pascal Case (the first letter of each word is capital). This is to distinguish between constructor functions and other functions. It is important that constructor functions be called with the ‘new’ keyword and that not constructor functions are not. There are two problems with the pattern constructor function pattern shown above: It makes inheritance difficult The toString() function is redefined for each new object created by the Person constructor. This is sub-optimal because the function should be shared between all of the instances of the Person type. Constructor Functions with a Prototype JavaScript functions have a special property called prototype. When an object is created by calling a JavaScript constructor all of the properties of the constructor’s prototype become available to the new object. In this way many Person objects can be created that can access the same prototype. An improved version of the above example can be written: function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { toString: function() { return this.name + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); In this version a single instance of the toString() function will now be shared between all Person objects. Private Members The short version is: there aren’t any. If a variable is defined, with the var keyword, within the constructor function then its scope is that function. Other functions defined within the constructor function will be able to access the private variable, but anything defined outside the constructor (such as functions on the prototype property) won’t have access to the private variable. Any variables defined on the constructor are automatically public. Some people solve this problem by prefixing properties with an underscore and then not calling those properties by convention. function Person(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } Person.prototype = { _getName: function() { return this.name; }, toString: function() { return this._getName() + " is " + this.age + " years old."; } }; var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); Note that the _getName() function is only private by convention – it is in fact a public function. Functional Object Construction Because of the weirdness involved in using constructor functions some JavaScript developers prefer to eschew them completely. They theorize that it is better to work with JavaScript’s functional nature than to try and force it to behave like a traditional class-oriented language. When using the functional approach objects are created by returning them from a factory function. An excellent side effect of this pattern is that variables defined with the factory function are accessible to the new object (due to closure) but are inaccessible from anywhere else. The Person example implemented using the functional object construction pattern is: var john = new Person("John Galt", 50); console.log(john.toString()); var personFactory = function(name, age) { var privateVar = 7; return { toString: function() { return name + " is " + age * privateVar / privateVar + " years old."; } }; }; var john2 = personFactory("John Lennon", 40); console.log(john2.toString()); Note that the ‘new’ keyword is not used for this pattern, and that the toString() function has access to the name, age and privateVar variables because of closure. This pattern can be extended to provide inheritance and, unlike the constructor function pattern, it supports private variables. However, when working with JavaScript code bases you will find that the constructor function is more common – probably because it is a better approximation of mainstream class oriented languages like C# and Java. Inheritance Both of the above patterns can support inheritance but for now, favour composition over inheritance. Summary When JavaScript code exceeds simple browser automation object orientation can provide a powerful paradigm for controlling complexity. Both of the patterns presented in this article work – the choice is a matter of style. Only one question still remains; who is John Galt?

    Read the article

  • How do I set up MVP for a Winforms solution?

    - by JonWillis
    Question moved from Stackoverflow - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4971048/how-do-i-set-up-mvp-for-a-winforms-solution I have used MVP and MVC in the past, and I prefer MVP as it controls the flow of execution so much better in my opinion. I have created my infrastructure (datastore/repository classes) and use them without issue when hard coding sample data, so now I am moving onto the GUI and preparing my MVP. Section A I have seen MVP using the view as the entry point, that is in the views constructor method it creates the presenter, which in turn creates the model, wiring up events as needed. I have also seen the presenter as the entry point, where a view, model and presenter are created, this presenter is then given a view and model object in its constructor to wire up the events. As in 2, but the model is not passed to the presenter. Instead the model is a static class where methods are called and responses returned directly. Section B In terms of keeping the view and model in sync I have seen. Whenever a value in the view in changed, i.e. TextChanged event in .Net/C#. This fires a DataChangedEvent which is passed through into the model, to keep it in sync at all times. And where the model changes, i.e. a background event it listens to, then the view is updated via the same idea of raising a DataChangedEvent. When a user wants to commit changes a SaveEvent it fires, passing through into the model to make the save. In this case the model mimics the view's data and processes actions. Similar to #b1, however the view does not sync with the model all the time. Instead when the user wants to commit changes, SaveEvent is fired and the presenter grabs the latest details and passes them into the model. in this case the model does not know about the views data until it is required to act upon it, in which case it is passed all the needed details. Section C Displaying of business objects in the view, i.e. a object (MyClass) not primitive data (int, double) The view has property fields for all its data that it will display as domain/business objects. Such as view.Animals exposes a IEnumerable<IAnimal> property, even though the view processes these into Nodes in a TreeView. Then for the selected animal it would expose SelectedAnimal as IAnimal property. The view has no knowledge of domain objects, it exposes property for primitive/framework (.Net/Java) included objects types only. In this instance the presenter will pass an adapter object the domain object, the adapter will then translate a given business object into the controls visible on the view. In this instance the adapter must have access to the actual controls on the view, not just any view so becomes more tightly coupled. Section D Multiple views used to create a single control. i.e. You have a complex view with a simple model like saving objects of different types. You could have a menu system at the side with each click on an item the appropriate controls are shown. You create one huge view, that contains all of the individual controls which are exposed via the views interface. You have several views. You have one view for the menu and a blank panel. This view creates the other views required but does not display them (visible = false), this view also implements the interface for each view it contains (i.e. child views) so it can expose to one presenter. The blank panel is filled with other views (Controls.Add(myview)) and ((myview.visible = true). The events raised in these "child"-views are handled by the parent view which in turn pass the event to the presenter, and visa versa for supplying events back down to child elements. Each view, be it the main parent or smaller child views are each wired into there own presenter and model. You can literately just drop a view control into an existing form and it will have the functionality ready, just needs wiring into a presenter behind the scenes. Section E Should everything have an interface, now based on how the MVP is done in the above examples will affect this answer as they might not be cross-compatible. Everything has an interface, the View, Presenter and Model. Each of these then obviously has a concrete implementation. Even if you only have one concrete view, model and presenter. The View and Model have an interface. This allows the views and models to differ. The presenter creates/is given view and model objects and it just serves to pass messages between them. Only the View has an interface. The Model has static methods and is not created, thus no need for an interface. If you want a different model, the presenter calls a different set of static class methods. Being static the Model has no link to the presenter. Personal thoughts From all the different variations I have presented (most I have probably used in some form) of which I am sure there are more. I prefer A3 as keeping business logic reusable outside just MVP, B2 for less data duplication and less events being fired. C1 for not adding in another class, sure it puts a small amount of non unit testable logic into a view (how a domain object is visualised) but this could be code reviewed, or simply viewed in the application. If the logic was complex I would agree to an adapter class but not in all cases. For section D, i feel D1 creates a view that is too big atleast for a menu example. I have used D2 and D3 before. Problem with D2 is you end up having to write lots of code to route events to and from the presenter to the correct child view, and its not drag/drop compatible, each new control needs more wiring in to support the single presenter. D3 is my prefered choice but adds in yet more classes as presenters and models to deal with the view, even if the view happens to be very simple or has no need to be reused. i think a mixture of D2 and D3 is best based on circumstances. As to section E, I think everything having an interface could be overkill I already do it for domain/business objects and often see no advantage in the "design" by doing so, but it does help in mocking objects in tests. Personally I would see E2 as a classic solution, although have seen E3 used in 2 projects I have worked on previously. Question Am I implementing MVP correctly? Is there a right way of going about it? I've read Martin Fowler's work that has variations, and I remember when I first started doing MVC, I understood the concept, but could not originally work out where is the entry point, everything has its own function but what controls and creates the original set of MVC objects.

    Read the article

  • Isometric drawing "Not Tile Stuff" on isometric map?

    - by Icebone1000
    So I got my isometric renderer working, it can draw diamond or jagged maps...Then I want to move on...How do I draw characters/objects on it in a optimal way? What Im doing now, as one can imagine, is traversing my grid(map) and drawing the tiles in a order so alpha blending works correctly. So, anything I draw in this map must be drawed at the same time the map is being drawn, with sucks a lot, screws your very modular map drawer, because now everything on the game (but the HUD) must be included on the drawer.. I was thinking whats the best approach to do this, comparing the position of all objects(not tile stuff) on the grid against the current tile being draw seems stupid, would it be better to add an id ON the grid(map)? this also seems terrible, because objects can move freely, not per tile steps (it can occupies 2 tiles if its between them, etc.) Dont know if matters, but my grid is 3D, so its not a plane with objects poping out, its a bunch of pilled cubes.

    Read the article

  • Understanding UML composition better

    - by Prog
    The technical difference between Composition and Aggregation in UML (and sometimes in programming too) is that with Composition, the lifetime of the objects composing the composite (e.g. an engine and a steering wheel in a car) is dependent on the composite object. While with Aggregation, the lifetime of the objects making up the composite is independent of the composite. However I'm not sure about something related to composition in UML. Say ClassA is composed of an object of ClassB: class ClassA{ ClassB bInstance; public ClassA(){ bInstance = new ClassB(); } } This is an example of composition, because bInstance is dependent on the lifetime of it's enclosing object. However, regarding UML notation - I'm not sure if I would notate the relationship between ClassA and ClassB with a filled diamond (composition) or a white diamond (aggregation). This is because while the lifetime of some ClassB instances is dependent of ClassA instances - there could be ClassB instances anywhere else in the program - not only within ClassA instances. The question is: if ClassA objects are composed of ClassB objects - but other ClassB objects are free to be used anywhere else in the program: Should the relationship between ClassA and ClassB be notated as aggregation or as composition?

    Read the article

  • 2D non-tile based map editor

    - by Jonesy
    I am currently developing a relatively simple 2D, topdown oriented adventure game for the iPhone and was wondering what would be the easiest way to create the maps for my game. I figured I would need some kind of visual editor that would give me immediate feedback and would allow me to place all objects in the world exactly where I want them. I could then load the saved representation of the world I create in the editor in my game. So, I am looking for a simple map editor that allows me to do this. All the objects in my game are simply textured rectangles build up from two triangles. All I need to be able to do is position different rectangles/objects in the map, and give them a texture. I am using texture atlases, so it would be useful to be able to assign portions of textures to the objects. I then need to be able to extract all the objects from the saved representation of my maps, together with the name/identifier of the texture(atlas) they use, and the area of the texture atlas. I have looked at some tile-based map editors like Tiled and Ogmo, but they don't seem to be able to do what I want. Any suggestions? EDIT: a more concrete example: something like the GameMaker level editor, but then with added export functionality in a handy format.

    Read the article

  • How Magnetic Levitation Works

    - by Akemi Iwaya
    There are multiple ways to create magnets or make objects magnetic, but the most ‘interesting’ version is the one that can affect normal ‘non-magnetic’ everyday objects. When they are placed within a magnetic field, everyday objects will start displaying diamagnetic properties and react to magnets. Watch and enjoy as MinutePhysics discusses this awesome type of magnetism in their latest video. Magnetic Levitation [YouTube]     

    Read the article

  • How to structure game states in an entity/component-based system

    - by Eva
    I'm making a game designed with the entity-component paradigm that uses systems to communicate between components as explained here. I've reached the point in my development that I need to add game states (such as paused, playing, level start, round start, game over, etc.), but I'm not sure how to do it with my framework. I've looked at this code example on game states which everyone seems to reference, but I don't think it fits with my framework. It seems to have each state handling its own drawing and updating. My framework has a SystemManager that handles all the updating using systems. For example, here's my RenderingSystem class: public class RenderingSystem extends GameSystem { private GameView gameView_; /** * Constructor * Creates a new RenderingSystem. * @param gameManager The game manager. Used to get the game components. */ public RenderingSystem(GameManager gameManager) { super(gameManager); } /** * Method: registerGameView * Registers gameView into the RenderingSystem. * @param gameView The game view registered. */ public void registerGameView(GameView gameView) { gameView_ = gameView; } /** * Method: triggerRender * Adds a repaint call to the event queue for the dirty rectangle. */ public void triggerRender() { Rectangle dirtyRect = new Rectangle(); for (GameObject object : getRenderableObjects()) { GraphicsComponent graphicsComponent = object.getComponent(GraphicsComponent.class); dirtyRect.add(graphicsComponent.getDirtyRect()); } gameView_.repaint(dirtyRect); } /** * Method: renderGameView * Renders the game objects onto the game view. * @param g The graphics object that draws the game objects. */ public void renderGameView(Graphics g) { for (GameObject object : getRenderableObjects()) { GraphicsComponent graphicsComponent = object.getComponent(GraphicsComponent.class); if (!graphicsComponent.isVisible()) continue; GraphicsComponent.Shape shape = graphicsComponent.getShape(); BoundsComponent boundsComponent = object.getComponent(BoundsComponent.class); Rectangle bounds = boundsComponent.getBounds(); g.setColor(graphicsComponent.getColor()); if (shape == GraphicsComponent.Shape.RECTANGULAR) { g.fill3DRect(bounds.x, bounds.y, bounds.width, bounds.height, true); } else if (shape == GraphicsComponent.Shape.CIRCULAR) { g.fillOval(bounds.x, bounds.y, bounds.width, bounds.height); } } } /** * Method: getRenderableObjects * @return The renderable game objects. */ private HashSet<GameObject> getRenderableObjects() { return gameManager.getGameObjectManager().getRelevantObjects( getClass()); } } Also all the updating in my game is event-driven. I don't have a loop like theirs that simply updates everything at the same time. I like my framework because it makes it easy to add new GameObjects, but doesn't have the problems some component-based designs encounter when communicating between components. I would hate to chuck it just to get pause to work. Is there a way I can add game states to my game without removing the entity-component design? Does the game state example actually fit my framework, and I'm just missing something? EDIT: I might not have explained my framework well enough. My components are just data. If I was coding in C++, they'd probably be structs. Here's an example of one: public class BoundsComponent implements GameComponent { /** * The position of the game object. */ private Point pos_; /** * The size of the game object. */ private Dimension size_; /** * Constructor * Creates a new BoundsComponent for a game object with initial position * initialPos and initial size initialSize. The position and size combine * to make up the bounds. * @param initialPos The initial position of the game object. * @param initialSize The initial size of the game object. */ public BoundsComponent(Point initialPos, Dimension initialSize) { pos_ = initialPos; size_ = initialSize; } /** * Method: getBounds * @return The bounds of the game object. */ public Rectangle getBounds() { return new Rectangle(pos_, size_); } /** * Method: setPos * Sets the position of the game object to newPos. * @param newPos The value to which the position of the game object is * set. */ public void setPos(Point newPos) { pos_ = newPos; } } My components do not communicate with each other. Systems handle inter-component communication. My systems also do not communicate with each other. They have separate functionality and can easily be kept separate. The MovementSystem doesn't need to know what the RenderingSystem is rendering to move the game objects correctly; it just need to set the right values on the components, so that when the RenderingSystem renders the game objects, it has accurate data. The game state could not be a system, because it needs to interact with the systems rather than the components. It's not setting data; it's determining which functions need to be called. A GameStateComponent wouldn't make sense because all the game objects share one game state. Components are what make up objects and each one is different for each different object. For example, the game objects cannot have the same bounds. They can have overlapping bounds, but if they share a BoundsComponent, they're really the same object. Hopefully, this explanation makes my framework less confusing.

    Read the article

  • Class Design -- Multiple Calls from One Method or One Call from Multiple Methods?

    - by Andrew
    I've been working on some code recently that interfaces with a CMS we use and it's presented me with a question on class design that I think is applicable in a number of situations. Essentially, what I am doing is extracting information from the CMS and transforming this information into objects that I can use programatically for other purposes. This consists of two steps: Retrieve the data from the CMS (we have a DAL that I use, so this is essentially just specifying what data from the CMS I want--no connection logic or anything like that) Map the parsed data to my own [C#] objects There are basically two ways I can approach this: One call from multiple methods public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(); // Do other stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); List<MyObject> mappedObjects = new List<MyObject>(); // do stuff to map the CmsDataItems to MyObjects return mappedObjects; } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { List<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = new List<CmsDataItem>(); // do stuff to get the CmsDataItems I want return cmsDataItems; } Multiple calls from one method public void MainMethodWhereIDoStuff() { IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> cmsDataItems = GetCmsDataItems(); IEnumerable<MyObject> myObjects = GetMyObjects(cmsDataItems); // do stuff with myObjects } private static IEnumerable<MyObject> GetMyObjects(IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> itemsToMap) { // ... } private static IEnumerable<CmsDataItem> GetCmsDataItems() { // ... } I am tempted to say that the latter is better than the former, as GetMyObjects does not depend on GetCmsDataItems, and it is explicit in the calling method the steps that are executed to retrieve the objects (I'm concerned that the first approach is kind of an object-oriented version of spaghetti code). On the other hand, the two helper methods are never going to be used outside of the class, so I'm not sure if it really matters whether one depends on the other. Furthermore, I like the fact that in the first approach the objects can be retrieved from one line-- most likely anyone working with the main method doesn't care how the objects are retrieved, they just need to retrieve the objects, and the "daisy chained" helper methods hide the exact steps needed to retrieve them (in practice, I actually have a few more methods but am still able to retrieve the object collection I want in one line). Is one of these methods right and the other wrong? Or is it simply a matter of preference or context dependent?

    Read the article

  • Scripts won't affect clones - Unity3d

    - by user3666251
    I made a script which swaps two game objects on click.But the script won't work because the objects are actualy clones of the original prefab. This is the script (UnityScript): #pragma strict var object1 : GameObject; var object2 : GameObject; function OnMouseDown () { Instantiate(object2,object1.transform.position,object1.transform.rotation); Destroy(object1); } I use this script to create other game objects (clones)[c#] : using UnityEngine; using System.Collections; public class Spawner : MonoBehaviour { public GameObject[] obj; public float spawnMin = 1f; public float spawnMax = 2f; // Use this for initialization void Start () { Spawn (); } void Spawn() { Instantiate(obj[Random.Range(0, obj.GetLength(0))],transform.position, Quaternion.identity); Invoke ("Spawn", Random.Range (spawnMin, spawnMax)); } } The objects get renamed to NAME (Clone). What I wanna do is make the script affect clones too.So they will swap when I click on them.

    Read the article

  • 2D non-tile based map editor

    - by user5468
    I am currently developing a relatively simple 2D, topdown oriented adventure game for the iPhone and was wondering what would be the easiest way to create the maps for my game. I figured I would need some kind of visual editor that would give me immediate feedback and would allow me to place all objects in the world exactly where I want them. I could then load the saved representation of the world I create in the editor in my game. So, I am looking for a simple map editor that allows me to do this. All the objects in my game are simply textured rectangles build up from two triangles. All I need to be able to do is position different rectangles/objects in the map, and give them a texture. I am using texture atlases, so it would be useful to be able to assign portions of textures to the objects. I then need to be able to extract all the objects from the saved representation of my maps, together with the name/identifier of the texture(atlas) they use, and the area of the texture atlas. I have looked at some tile-based map editors like Tiled and Ogmo, but they don't seem to be able to do what I want. Any suggestions? EDIT: a more concrete example: something like the GameMaker level editor, but then with added export functionality in a handy format.

    Read the article

  • array and array_view from amp.h

    - by Daniel Moth
    This is a very long post, but it also covers what are probably the classes (well, array_view at least) that you will use the most with C++ AMP, so I hope you enjoy it! Overview The concurrency::array and concurrency::array_view template classes represent multi-dimensional data of type T, of N dimensions, specified at compile time (and you can later access the number of dimensions via the rank property). If N is not specified, it is assumed that it is 1 (i.e. single-dimensional case). They are rectangular (not jagged). The difference between them is that array is a container of data, whereas array_view is a wrapper of a container of data. So in that respect, array behaves like an STL container, whereas the closest thing an array_view behaves like is an STL iterator (albeit with random access and allowing you to view more than one element at a time!). The data in the array (whether provided at creation time or added later) resides on an accelerator (which is specified at creation time either explicitly by the developer, or set to the default accelerator at creation time by the runtime) and is laid out contiguously in memory. The data provided to the array_view is not stored by/in the array_view, because the array_view is simply a view over the real source (which can reside on the CPU or other accelerator). The underlying data is copied on demand to wherever the array_view is accessed. Elements which differ by one in the least significant dimension of the array_view are adjacent in memory. array objects must be captured by reference into the lambda you pass to the parallel_for_each call, whereas array_view objects must be captured by value (into the lambda you pass to the parallel_for_each call). Creating array and array_view objects and relevant properties You can create array_view objects from other array_view objects of the same rank and element type (shallow copy, also possible via assignment operator) so they point to the same underlying data, and you can also create array_view objects over array objects of the same rank and element type e.g.   array_view<int,3> a(b); // b can be another array or array_view of ints with rank=3 Note: Unlike the constructors above which can be called anywhere, the ones in the rest of this section can only be called from CPU code. You can create array objects from other array objects of the same rank and element type (copy and move constructors) and from other array_view objects, e.g.   array<float,2> a(b); // b can be another array or array_view of floats with rank=2 To create an array from scratch, you need to at least specify an extent object, e.g. array<int,3> a(myExtent);. Note that instead of an explicit extent object, there are convenience overloads when N<=3 so you can specify 1-, 2-, 3- integers (dependent on the array's rank) and thus have the extent created for you under the covers. At any point, you can access the array's extent thought the extent property. The exact same thing applies to array_view (extent as constructor parameters, incl. convenience overloads, and property). While passing only an extent object to create an array is enough (it means that the array will be written to later), it is not enough for the array_view case which must always wrap over some other container (on which it relies for storage space and actual content). So in addition to the extent object (that describes the shape you'd like to be viewing/accessing that data through), to create an array_view from another container (e.g. std::vector) you must pass in the container itself (which must expose .data() and a .size() methods, e.g. like std::array does), e.g.   array_view<int,2> aaa(myExtent, myContainerOfInts); Similarly, you can create an array_view from a raw pointer of data plus an extent object. Back to the array case, to optionally initialize the array with data, you can pass an iterator pointing to the start (and optionally one pointing to the end of the source container) e.g.   array<double,1> a(5, myVector.begin(), myVector.end()); We saw that arrays are bound to an accelerator at creation time, so in case you don’t want the C++ AMP runtime to assign the array to the default accelerator, all array constructors have overloads that let you pass an accelerator_view object, which you can later access via the accelerator_view property. Note that at the point of initializing an array with data, a synchronous copy of the data takes place to the accelerator, and then to copy any data back we'll see that an explicit copy call is required. This does not happen with the array_view where copying is on demand... refresh and synchronize on array_view Note that in the previous section on constructors, unlike the array case, there was no overload that accepted an accelerator_view for array_view. That is because the array_view is simply a wrapper, so the allocation of the data has already taken place before you created the array_view. When you capture an array_view variable in your call to parallel_for_each, the copy of data between the non-CPU accelerator and the CPU takes place on demand (i.e. it is implicit, versus the explicit copy that has to happen with the array). There are some subtleties to the on-demand-copying that we cover next. The assumption when using an array_view is that you will continue to access the data through the array_view, and not through the original underlying source, e.g. the pointer to the data that you passed to the array_view's constructor. So if you modify the data through the array_view on the GPU, the original pointer on the CPU will not "know" that, unless one of two things happen: you access the data through the array_view on the CPU side, i.e. using indexing that we cover below you explicitly call the array_view's synchronize method on the CPU (this also gets called in the array_view's destructor for you) Conversely, if you make a change to the underlying data through the original source (e.g. the pointer), the array_view will not "know" about those changes, unless you call its refresh method. Finally, note that if you create an array_view of const T, then the data is copied to the accelerator on demand, but it does not get copied back, e.g.   array_view<const double, 5> myArrView(…); // myArrView will not get copied back from GPU There is also a similar mechanism to achieve the reverse, i.e. not to copy the data of an array_view to the GPU. copy_to, data, and global copy/copy_async functions Both array and array_view expose two copy_to overloads that allow copying them to another array, or to another array_view, and these operations can also be achieved with assignment (via the = operator overloads). Also both array and array_view expose a data method, to get a raw pointer to the underlying data of the array or array_view, e.g. float* f = myArr.data();. Note that for array_view, this only works when the rank is equal to 1, due to the data only being contiguous in one dimension as covered in the overview section. Finally, there are a bunch of global concurrency::copy functions returning void (and corresponding concurrency::copy_async functions returning a future) that allow copying between arrays and array_views and iterators etc. Just browse intellisense or amp.h directly for the full set. Note that for array, all copying described throughout this post is deep copying, as per other STL container expectations. You can never have two arrays point to the same data. indexing into array and array_view plus projection Reading or writing data elements of an array is only legal when the code executes on the same accelerator as where the array was bound to. In the array_view case, you can read/write on any accelerator, not just the one where the original data resides, and the data gets copied for you on demand. In both cases, the way you read and write individual elements is via indexing as described next. To access (or set the value of) an element, you can index into it by passing it an index object via the subscript operator. Furthermore, if the rank is 3 or less, you can use the function ( ) operator to pass integer values instead of having to use an index object. e.g. array<float,2> arr(someExtent, someIterator); //or array_view<float,2> arr(someExtent, someContainer); index<2> idx(5,4); float f1 = arr[idx]; float f2 = arr(5,4); //f2 ==f1 //and the reverse for assigning, e.g. arr(idx[0], 7) = 6.9; Note that for both array and array_view, regardless of rank, you can also pass a single integer to the subscript operator which results in a projection of the data, and (for both array and array_view) you get back an array_view of rank N-1 (or if the rank was 1, you get back just the element at that location). Not Covered In this already very long post, I am not going to cover three very cool methods (and related overloads) that both array and array_view expose: view_as, section, reinterpret_as. We'll revisit those at some point in the future, probably on the team blog. Comments about this post by Daniel Moth welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

  • Clean way to use mutable implementation of Immutable interfaces for encapsulation

    - by dsollen
    My code is working on some compost relationship which creates a tree structure, class A has many children of type B, which has many children of type C etc. The lowest level class, call it bar, also points to a connected bar class. This effectively makes nearly every object in my domain inter-connected. Immutable objects would be problematic due to the expense of rebuilding almost all of my domain to make a single change to one class. I chose to go with an interface approach. Every object has an Immutable interface which only publishes the getter methods. I have controller objects which constructs the domain objects and thus has reference to the full objects, thus capable of calling the setter methods; but only ever publishes the immutable interface. Any change requested will go through the controller. So something like this: public interface ImmutableFoo{ public Bar getBar(); public Location getLocation(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ private Bar bar; private Location location; @Override public Bar getBar(){ return Bar; } public void setBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public Location getLocation(){ return Location; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); if(foo!=null) foo.addBar(bar); return foo; } } I felt the basic approach seems sensible, however, when I speak to others they always seem to have trouble envisioning what I'm describing, which leaves me concerned that I may have a larger design issue then I'm aware of. Is it problematic to have domain objects so tightly coupled, or to use the quasi-mutable approach to modifying them? Assuming that the design approach itself isn't inherently flawed the particular discussion which left me wondering about my approach had to do with the presence of business logic in the domain objects. Currently I have my setter methods in the mutable objects do error checking and all other logic required to verify and make a change to the object. It was suggested that this should be pulled out into a service class, which applies all the business logic, to simplify my domain objects. I understand the advantage in mocking/testing and general separation of logic into two classes. However, with a service method/object It seems I loose some of the advantage of polymorphism, I can't override a base class to add in new error checking or business logic. It seems, if my polymorphic classes were complicated enough, I would end up with a service method that has to check a dozen flags to decide what error checking and business logic applies. So, for example, if I wanted to have a childFoo which also had a size field which should be compared to bar before adding par my current approach would look something like this. public class Foo implements ImmutableFoo{ public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(!getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation()) throw new LocationException(); this.bar=bar; } } public interface ImmutableChildFoo extends ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public ChildFoo extends Foo implements ImmutableChildFoo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ if(getSize()<bar.getSize()){ throw new LocationException(); super.addBar(bar); } My colleague was suggesting instead having a service object that looks something like this (over simplified, the 'service' object would likely be more complex). public interface ImmutableFoo{ ///original interface, presumably used in other methods public Location getLocation(); public boolean isChildFoo(); } public interface ImmutableSizedFoo implements ImmutableFoo{ public int getSize(); } public class Foo implements ImmutableSizedFoo{ public Bar bar; @Override public void addBar(Bar bar){ this.bar=bar; } @Override public int getSize(){ //default size if no size is known return 0; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo return false; } } public ChildFoo extends Foo{ private int size; @Override public int getSize(){ return size; } @Override public boolean isChildFoo(); return true; } } public class Controller{ Private Map<Location, Foo> fooMap; public ImmutableSizedFoo addBar(Bar bar){ Foo foo=fooMap.get(bar.getLocation()); service.addBarToFoo(foo, bar); returned foo; } public class Service{ public static void addBarToFoo(Foo foo, Bar bar){ if(foo==null) return; if(!foo.getLocation().equals(bar.getLocation())) throw new LocationException(); if(foo.isChildFoo() && foo.getSize()<bar.getSize()) throw new LocationException(); foo.setBar(bar); } } } Is the recommended approach of using services and inversion of control inherently superior, or superior in certain cases, to overriding methods directly? If so is there a good way to go with the service approach while not loosing the power of polymorphism to override some of the behavior?

    Read the article

  • Organising levels / rooms in a MUD-style text based world

    - by Polynomial
    I'm thinking of writing a small text-based adventure game, but I'm not particularly sure how I should design the world from a technical standpoint. My first thought is to do it in XML, designed something like the following. Apologies for the huge pile of XML, but I felt it important to fully explain what I'm doing. <level> <start> <!-- start in kitchen with empty inventory --> <room>Kitchen</room> <inventory></inventory> </start> <rooms> <room> <name>Kitchen</name> <description>A small kitchen that looks like it hasn't been used in a while. It has a table in the middle, and there are some cupboards. There is a door to the north, which leads to the garden.</description> <!-- IDs of the objects the room contains --> <objects> <object>Cupboards</object> <object>Knife</object> <object>Batteries</object> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Garden</name> <description>The garden is wild and full of prickly bushes. To the north there is a path, which leads into the trees. To the south there is a house.</description> <objects> </objects> </room> <room> <name>Woods</name> <description>The woods are quite dark, with little light bleeding in from the garden. It is eerily quiet.</description> <objects> <object>Trees01</object> </objects> </room> </rooms> <doors> <!-- a door isn't necessarily a door. each door has a type, i.e. "There is a <type> leading to..." from and to are references the rooms that this door joins. direction specifies the direction (N,S,E,W,Up,Down) from <from> to <to> --> <door> <type>door</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Kitchen</from> <to>Garden</to> </door> <door> <type>path</type> <direction>N</direction> <from>Garden</type> <to>Woods</type> </door> </doors> <variables> <!-- variables set by actions --> <variable name="cupboard_open">0</variable> </variables> <objects> <!-- definitions for objects --> <object> <name>Trees01</name> <displayName>Trees</displayName> <actions> <!-- any actions not defined will show the default failure message --> <action> <command>EXAMINE</command> <message>The trees are tall and thick. There aren't any low branches, so it'd be difficult to climb them.</message> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Cupboards</name> <displayName>Cupboards</displayName> <actions> <action> <!-- requirements make the command only work when they are met --> <requirements> <!-- equivilent of "if(cupboard_open == 1)" --> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>EXAMINE</command> <!-- fail message is the message displayed when the requirements aren't met --> <failMessage>The cupboard is closed.</failMessage> <message>The cupboard contains some batteires.</message> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="0">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>OPEN</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already open.</failMessage> <message>You open the cupboard. It contains some batteries.</message> <!-- assigns is a list of operations performed on variables when the action succeeds --> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="1">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>CLOSE</command> <failMessage>The cupboard is already closed.</failMessage> <message>You closed the cupboard./message> <assigns> <assign operation="set" value="0">cupboard_open</assign> </assigns> </action> </actions> </object> <object> <name>Batteries</name> <displayName>Batteries</displayName> <!-- by setting inventory to non-zero, we can put it in our bag --> <inventory>1</inventory> <actions> <action> <requirements> <require operation="equal" value="1">cupboard_open</require> </requirements> <command>GET</command> <!-- failMessage isn't required here, it'll just show the usual "You can't see any <blank>." message --> <message>You picked up the batteries.</message> </action> </actions> </object> </objects> </level> Obviously there'd need to be more to it than this. Interaction with people and enemies as well as death and completion are necessary additions. Since the XML is quite difficult to work with, I'd probably create some sort of world editor. I'd like to know if this method has any downfalls, and if there's a "better" or more standard way of doing it.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic character animation - Using the physics engine or not

    - by Lex Webb
    I'm planning on building a dynamic reactant animation engine for the characters in my 2D Game. I have already built templates for a skeleton based animation system using key frames and interpolation to specify a limbs position at any given moment in time. I am using Farseer physics (an extension of Box2D) in Monogame/XNA in C# My real question lies in how i go about tying this character animation into the physics engine. I have two options: Moving limbs using physics engine - applying a interpolated force to each limb (dynamic body) in order to attempt to get it to its position as donated by the skeleton animation. Moving limbs by simply changing the position of a fixed body - Updating the new position of each limb manually, attempting to take into account physics collisions. Then stepping the physics after the animation to allow for environment interaction. Each of these methods have their distinct advantages and disadvantages. Physics based movement Advantages: Possibly more natural/realistic movement Better interaction with game objects as force applying to objects colliding with characters would be calculated for me. No need to convert to dynamic bodies when reacting to projectiles/death/fighting. Disadvantages: Possible difficulty in calculating correct amount of force to move a limb a certain distance at a constant rate. Underlying character balance system would need to be created that would need to be robust enough to prevent characters falling over at the touch of a feather. Added code complexity and processing time for the above. Static Object movement Advantages: Easy to interpolate movement of limbs between game steps Moving limbs is as simple as applying a rotation to the skeleton bone. Greater control over limbs, wont need to worry about characters falling over as all animation would be pre-defined. Disadvantages: Possible unnatural movement (Depends entirely on my animation skills!) Bad physics collision reactions with physics engine (Dynamic bodies simply slide out of the way of static objects) Need to calculate collisions with physics objects and my limbs myself and apply directional forces to them. Hard to account for slopes/stairs/non standard planes when animating walking/running animations. Need to convert objects to dynamic when reacting to projectile/fighting/death physics objects. The Question! As you can see, i have thought about this extensively, i have also had Google into physics based animation and have found mostly dissertation papers! Which is filling me with sense that it may a lot more advanced than my mathematics skills. My question is mostly subjective based on my findings above/any experience you may have: Which of the above methods should i use when creating my game? I am willing to spend the time to get a physics solution working if you think it would be possible. In the end i want to provide the most satisfying experience for the gamer, as well as a robust and dynamic system i can use to animate pretty much anything i need.

    Read the article

  • moore's law and quadratic algorithm

    - by damon
    I was going thru a video (from coursera - by sedgewick) in which he argues that you cannot sustain Moore's law using a quadratic algorithm.He elaborates like this In year 197* you build a computer of power X ,and need to count N objects.This takes M days According to Moore's law,you have a computer of power 2X after 1.5 years.But now you have 2N objects to count. If you use a quadratic algorithm, In year 197*+1.5 ,it takes (4M)/2 = 2M days 4M because the algorithm is quadratic,and division by 2 because of doubling computer power. I find this hard to understand.I tried to work thru this as below To count N objects using comp=X , it takes M days. -> N/X = M After 1.5 yrs ,you need to count 2N objects using comp=2X -> 2N/(2X) -> N/X -> M days where do I go wrong? can someone please help me understand?

    Read the article

  • Using unordered_multimap as entity and component storage

    - by natebot13
    The Setup I've made a few games (more like animations) using the Object Oriented method with base classes for objects that extend them, and objects that extend those, and found I couldn't wrap my head around expanding that system to larger game ideas. So I did some research and discovered the Entity-Component system of designing games. I really like the idea, and thoroughly understood the usefulness of it after reading Byte54's perfect answer here: Role of systems in entity systems architecture. With that said, I have decided to create my current game idea using the described Entity-Component system. Having basic knowledge of C++, and SFML, I would like to implement the backbone of this entity component system using an unordered_multimap without classes for the entities themselves. Here's the idea: An unordered_mulitmap stores entity IDs as the lookup term, while the value is an inherited Component object. Examlpe: ____________________________ |ID |Component | ---------------------------- |0 |Movable | |0 |Accelable | |0 |Renderable | |1 |Movable | |1 |Renderable | |2 |Renderable | ---------------------------- So, according to this map of objects, the entity with ID 0 has three components: Movable, Accelable, and Renderable. These component objects store the entity specific data, such as the location, the acceleration, and render flags. The entity is simply and ID, with the components attached to that ID describing its attributes. Problem I want to store the component objects within the map, allowing the map have full ownership of the components. The problem I'm having, is I don't quite understand enough about pointers, shared pointers, and references in order to get that set up. How can I go about initializing these components, with their various member variables, within the unordered_multimap? Can the base component class take on the member variables of its child classes, when defining the map as unordered_multimap<int, component>? Requirements I need a system to be able to grab an entity, with all of its' attached components, and access members from the components in order to do the necessary calculations and reassignments for position, velocity, etc. Need a clarification? Post a comment with your concerns and I will gladly edit or comment back! Thanks in advance! natebot13

    Read the article

  • Relative encapsulation design

    - by taher1992
    Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

    Read the article

  • Part 8: How to name EBS Customizations

    - by volker.eckardt(at)oracle.com
    You might wonder why I am discussing this here. The reason is simple: nearly every project has a bit different naming conventions, which makes a the life always a bit complicated (for developers, but also setup responsible, and also for consultants).  Although we always create a document to describe the technical object naming conventions, I have rarely seen a dedicated document  with functional naming conventions. To be precisely, from my stand point, there should always be one global naming definition for an implementation! Let me discuss some related questions: What is the best convention for the customization reference? How to name database objects (tables, packages etc.)? How to name functional objects like Value Sets, Concurrent Programs, etc. How to separate customizations from standard objects best? What is the best convention for the customization reference? The customization reference is the key you use to reference your customization from other lists, from the project plan etc. Usually it is something like XXHU_CONV_22 (HU=customer abbreviation, CONV=Conversion object #22) or XXFA_DEPRN_RPT_02 (FA=Fixed Assets, DEPRN=Short object group, here depreciation, RPT=Report, 02=2nd report in this area) As this is just a reference (not an object name yet), I would prefer the second option. XX=Customization, FA=Main EBS Module linked (you may have sometimes more, but FA is the main) DEPRN_RPT=Short name to specify the customization 02=a unique number Important here is that the HU isn’t used, because XX is enough to mark a custom object, and the 3rd+4th char can be used by the EBS module short name. How to name database objects (tables, packages etc.)? I was leading different developer teams, and I know that one common way is it to take the Customization reference and add more chars behind to classify the object (like _V for view and _T1 for triggers etc.). The only concern I have with this approach is the reusability. If you name your view XXFA_DEPRN_RPT_02_V, no one will by choice reuse this nice view, as it seams to be specific for this CEMLI. My suggestion is rather to name the view XXFA_DEPRN_PERIODS_V and allow herewith reusability for other CEMLIs (although the view will be deployed primarily with CEMLI package XXFA_DEPRN_RPT_02). (check also one of the following Blogs where I will talk about deployment.) How to name Value Sets, Concurrent Programs, etc. For Value Sets I would go with the same convention as for database objects, starting with XX<Module> …. For Concurrent Programs the situation is a bit different. This “object” is seen and used by a lot of users, and they will search for. In many projects it is common to start again with the company short name, or with XX. My proposal would differ. If you have created your own report and you name it “XX: Invoice Report”, the user has to remember that this report does not start with “I”, it starts with X. Would you like typing an X if you are looking for an Invoice report? No, you wouldn’t! So my advise would be to name it:   “Invoice Report (XXAP)”. Still we know it is custom (because of the XXAP), but the end user will type the key “i” to get it (and will see similar reports starting also with “i”). I hope that the general schema behind has now become obvious. How to separate customizations from standard objects best? I would not have this section here if the naming would not play an important role. Unfortunately, we can not always link a custom application to our own object, therefore the naming is really important. In the file system structure we use our $XXyy_TOP, in JAVA_TOP it is perhaps also “xx” in front. But in the database itself? Although there are different concepts in place, still many implementations are using the standard “apps” approach, means custom objects are stored in the apps schema (which should not cause any trouble). Final advise: review the naming conventions regularly, once a month. You may have to add more! And, publish them! To summarize: Technical and functional customized objects should always follow a naming convention. This naming convention should be project wide, and only one place shall be used to maintain (like in a Wiki). If the name is for the end user, rather put a customization identifier at the end; if it is an internal name, start with XX…

    Read the article

  • Physics not synchronizing correctly over the network when using Bullet

    - by Lucas
    I'm trying to implement a client/server physics system using Bullet however I'm having problems getting things to sync up. I've implemented a custom motion state which reads and write the transform from my game objects and it works locally but I've tried two different approaches for networked games: Dynamic objects on the client that are also on the server (eg not random debris and other unimportant stuff) are made kinematic. This works correctly but the objects don't move very smoothly Objects are dynamic on both but after each message from the server that the object has moved I set the linear and angular velocity to the values from the server and call btRigidBody::proceedToTransform with the transform on the server. I also call btCollisionObject::activate(true); to force the object to update. My intent with method 2 was to basically do method 1 but hijacking Bullet to do a poor-man's prediction instead of doing my own to smooth out method 1, but this doesn't seem to work (for reasons that are not 100% clear to me even stepping through Bullet) and the objects sometimes end up in different places. Am I heading in the right direction? Bullet seems to have it's own interpolation code built-in. Can that help me make method 1 work better? Or is my method 2 code not working because I am accidentally stomping that?

    Read the article

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