Search Results

Search found 17921 results on 717 pages for 'cocoa design patterns'.

Page 95/717 | < Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >

• In some games, we just let the main() loop be the Player object or Table object?

  - by ????

  I was thinking that let's say if there is a game of Blackjack or MasterMind, then we should have a class called Dealer or ComputerPal, which is how the computer interact with us (as a dealer for Blackjack or as the person giving hints for MasterMind). And then there should be a Player object, and the way to play one game is aPlayer.playGame but I noticed that a book was just using the main() loop to act as the player (or as the Controller of the game), calling the Dealer methods to dealer the cards, ask for player's action, etc... 1) Is this just a lazy way to model all the proper objects? 2) If more objects are to be added, who should call the aDealer.dealCards and then ask for aPlayer.askForAction? (because it is strange to let the Player handle all the logical steps). Should there be a Table object that handle all these logic and then to play one round of game, use aTable.playGame? What is a good object design for such game?

  Read the article

• How to elegantly work with a lot of print functions?

  - by user1824372

  I'm working on a Python project that is executed on a terminal (or console) for which I am planning to implement a GUI. I did not major in CS so I really have no idea how to effectively design a terminal GUI such that: the user interface looks good in GUI, it is directed to a certain widget, let's say, a text label, or a bottom bar, or a hide-able frame. Do you have any suggestions? Currently, I am using the print function to provide essential information on STDOUT during execution, so a lot of print calls are distributed here and there in the code. I'm thinking of using macro-like variables such as 'FILE_NOT_EXISTS_MESSAGE' for printing, and all of them and their values would be defined in one file. Is that a standard way to do this? Should I introduce a logging system? In summary, I'm looking for a pattern for handling console output that is effective and adaptable.

  Read the article

• InfoPath 2010 Form Design and Web Part Deployment

  - by JKenderdine

  In January I had the pleasure to speak at SharePoint Saturday Virginia Beach.  I presented a session on InfoPath 2010 forms design which included some of the basics of Forms Design, description of some of the new options with InfoPath 2010 and SharePoint 2010, and other integration possibilities.  Included below is the information presented as well as the solution to create the demo: First thing you need to understand is what the difference is between an InfoPath List form and a Form Library Form?  SharePoint List Forms:  Store data directly in a SharePoint list.  Each control (e.g. text box) in the form is bound to a column in the list. SharePoint list forms are directly connected to the list, which means that you don’t have to worry about setting up the publish and submit locations. You also do not have the option for back-end code. Form Library Forms:  Store data in XML files in a SharePoint form library.  This means they are more flexible and you can do more with them.  For example, they can be configured to save drafts and submit to different locations. However, they are more complex to work with and require more decisions to be made during configuration.  You do have the option of back-end code with these type of forms. Next steps: You need to create your File Architecture Plan.  Plan the location for the saved template – both Test and Production (This is pretty much a given, but just in case - Always make sure to have a test environment) Plan for the location of the published template Then you need to document your Form Template Design Plan.  Some questions to ask to gather your requirements: What will the form be designed to do? Will it gather user information? Will it display data from a data source? Do we need to show different views to different users? What do we base this on? How will it be implemented for the users? Browser or Client based form Site collection content type – Published through Central Admin Form Library – Published directly to form library So what are the requirements for this template?  Business Card Request Form Template Design Plan Gather user information and requirements for card Pull in as much user information as possible. Use data from the user profile web services as a data source Show and hide fields as necessary for requirements Create multiple views – one for those submitting the form and another view for the executive assistants placing the orders. Browser based form integrated into SharePoint team site Published directly to form library The form was published through Central Administration and incorporated into the site as a content type. Utilizing the new InfoPath Web part, the form is integrated into the page and the users can complete the form directly from within that page. For now, if you are interested in the final form XSN, contact me using the Contact link above.   I will post soon with the details on how the form was created and how it integrated the requirements detailed above.

  Read the article

• Multitenant Design for SQL Azure: White Paper Available

  - by Herve Roggero

  Cloud computing is about scaling out all your application tiers, from web application to the database layer. In fact, the whole promise of Azure is to pay for just what you need. You need more IIS servers? No problemo... just spin another web server. You expect to double your storage needs for Azure Tables? No problemo; you are covered there too... just pay for your storage needs. But what about the database tier, SQL Azure? How do you add new databases easily, and transparently, so that your application simply uses more of SQL Azure if its needs to? Without changing a single line of code? And what if you need to scale back down? Welcome to the world of database scalability. There are many terms that describe database scalability, including data federation, multitenant designs, and even NoSQL depending on the technical solution you are implementing.  Because SQL Azure is a transactional database system, NoSQL is not really an option. However data federation and multitenant designs offer some very interesting scalability options that are worth considering. Data federation, a feature of SQL Azure that will be offered in the future, offers very interesting capabilities available natively on the SQL Azure platform. More to come in a few weeks... Multitenant designs on the other hand are design practices and technologies designed to help you reach flexible scalability options not available otherwise. The first incarnation of such a method was made available on CodePlex as an open source project (http://enzosqlshard.codeplex.com).  This project was an attempt to provide a sharding library for educational purposes.  All that sounds really cool... and really esoteric... almost a form of database "voodoo"... However after being on multiple Azure projects I am starting to see a real need. Customers want to be able to free themselves from the database tier, so that if they have 10 new customers tomorrow, all they need to do is add 2 more SQL Azure instances. It's that simple. How you achieve this, and suggested application design guidelines, are available in a white paper I just published.  The white paper offers two primary sections. The first section describes the business and technical problem at hand, and how to classify it according to specific design patterns. For example, I discuss compressed shards through schema separation. The second section offers a method for addressing the needs of a multitenant design using a new library, the big bother of the codeplex project mentioned previously (that I created earlier this year), complete with management interface and such. A Beta of this platform will be made available within weeks; as soon as the documentation will be ready.   I would like to ask you to drop me a quick email at [email protected] if you are going to download the white paper. It's not required, but it would help me get in touch with you for feedback.  You can download this white paper here:   http://www.bluesyntax.net/files/EnzoFramework.pdf . Thank you, and I am looking for feedback, thoughts and implementation opportunities.

  Read the article

• How accurate is "Business logic should be in a service, not in a model"?

  - by Jeroen Vannevel

  Situation Earlier this evening I gave an answer to a question on StackOverflow. The question: Editing of an existing object should be done in repository layer or in service? For example if I have a User that has debt. I want to change his debt. Should I do it in UserRepository or in service for example BuyingService by getting an object, editing it and saving it ? My answer: You should leave the responsibility of mutating an object to that same object and use the repository to retrieve this object. Example situation: class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } A comment I received: Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. What does the internet say? So, this got me searching since I've never really (consciously) used a service layer. I started reading up on the Service Layer pattern and the Unit Of Work pattern but so far I can't say I'm convinced a service layer has to be used. Take for example this article by Martin Fowler on the anti-pattern of an Anemic Domain Model: There are objects, many named after the nouns in the domain space, and these objects are connected with the rich relationships and structure that true domain models have. The catch comes when you look at the behavior, and you realize that there is hardly any behavior on these objects, making them little more than bags of getters and setters. Indeed often these models come with design rules that say that you are not to put any domain logic in the the domain objects. Instead there are a set of service objects which capture all the domain logic. These services live on top of the domain model and use the domain model for data. (...) The logic that should be in a domain object is domain logic - validations, calculations, business rules - whatever you like to call it. To me, this seemed exactly what the situation was about: I advocated the manipulation of an object's data by introducing methods inside that class that do just that. However I realize that this should be a given either way, and it probably has more to do with how these methods are invoked (using a repository). I also had the feeling that in that article (see below), a Service Layer is more considered as a façade that delegates work to the underlying model, than an actual work-intensive layer. Application Layer [his name for Service Layer]: Defines the jobs the software is supposed to do and directs the expressive domain objects to work out problems. The tasks this layer is responsible for are meaningful to the business or necessary for interaction with the application layers of other systems. This layer is kept thin. It does not contain business rules or knowledge, but only coordinates tasks and delegates work to collaborations of domain objects in the next layer down. It does not have state reflecting the business situation, but it can have state that reflects the progress of a task for the user or the program. Which is reinforced here: Service interfaces. Services expose a service interface to which all inbound messages are sent. You can think of a service interface as a façade that exposes the business logic implemented in the application (typically, logic in the business layer) to potential consumers. And here: The service layer should be devoid of any application or business logic and should focus primarily on a few concerns. It should wrap Business Layer calls, translate your Domain in a common language that your clients can understand, and handle the communication medium between server and requesting client. This is a serious contrast to other resources that talk about the Service Layer: The service layer should consist of classes with methods that are units of work with actions that belong in the same transaction. Or the second answer to a question I've already linked: At some point, your application will want some business logic. Also, you might want to validate the input to make sure that there isn't something evil or nonperforming being requested. This logic belongs in your service layer. "Solution"? Following the guidelines in this answer, I came up with the following approach that uses a Service Layer: class UserController : Controller { private UserService _userService; public UserController(UserService userService){ _userService = userService; } public ActionResult MakeHimPay(string username, int amount) { _userService.MakeHimPay(username, amount); return RedirectToAction("ShowUserOverview"); } public ActionResult ShowUserOverview() { return View(); } } class UserService { private IUserRepository _userRepository; public UserService(IUserRepository userRepository) { _userRepository = userRepository; } public void MakeHimPay(username, amount) { _userRepository.GetUserByName(username).makePayment(amount); } } class UserRepository { public User GetUserByName(string name){ // Get appropriate user from database } } class User { private int debt; // debt in cents private string name; // getters public void makePayment(int cents){ debt -= cents; } } Conclusion All together not much has changed here: code from the controller has moved to the service layer (which is a good thing, so there is an upside to this approach). However this doesn't look like it had anything to do with my original answer. I realize design patterns are guidelines, not rules set in stone to be implemented whenever possible. Yet I have not found a definitive explanation of the service layer and how it should be regarded. Is it a means to simply extract logic from the controller and put it inside a service instead? Is it supposed to form a contract between the controller and the domain? Should there be a layer between the domain and the service layer? And, last but not least: following the original comment Business logic should really be in a service. Not in a model. Is this correct? How would I introduce my business logic in a service instead of the model?

  Read the article

• What is the right way to group this project into classes?

  - by sigil

  I originally asked this on SO, where it was closed and recommended that I ask it here instead. I'm trying to figure out how to group all the functions necessary for my project into classes. The goal of the project is to execute the following process: Get the user's FTP credentials (username & password). Check to make sure the credentials establish a valid connection to the FTP server. Query several Sharepoint lists and join the results of those queries to create a list of items that need to have action taken on them. Each item in the list has a folder. For each item: Zip the contents of the folder. Upload the folder to the FTP server using SFTP Update the item's Sharepoint data. Email the user an Excel report showing, e.g., Items without folder paths Items that failed to zip or upload Steps 2-5 are performed on a periodic basis; if step 2 returns an invalid connection, the user is alerted and the process returns to step 1. If at any point the user presses a certain key, the process terminates. I've defined the following set of classes, each of which is in its own .cs file: SFTP: file transfer processes DataHandler: Sharepoint data retrieval/querying/updating processes. Also makes and uploads the zip files. Exceptions: Not just one class, this is the .cs file where I have all of my exception classes. Report: Builds and sends the report. Program: The main class for running the program. I recognize that the DataHandler class is a god object, but I don't have a good idea of how to refactor it. I feel like it should be more fine-grained than just breaking it into Sharepoint, Zip, and Upload, but maybe that's it. Also, I haven't yet worked out how to combine the periodic behavior with the "wait for user input at any point in the process" part; I think that involves threads, which means other classes to manage the threads... I'm not that well-versed in design patterns, but is there one that fits this project well? If this is too big of a topic to neatly explain in an SO answer, I'll also accept a link to a good tutorial on what I'm trying to do here.

  Read the article

• how to design a database for a specific website.

  - by Steven Spielberg

  i want to design a Database for a website. how i can design it better. are you know any particular thing, tips , technique to design it in better way. in a table of information user can allow to website to show it or hide it. how can i do this like info1 = show info2 = show info3 = show i have a much more field that user can be showed and hide. how i can handle this situation or condition in Database

  Read the article

• Singleton class design in C#, are these two classes equivalent?

  - by Oskar

  I was reading up on singleton class design in C# on this great resource and decided to go with alternative 4: public sealed class Singleton1 { static readonly Singleton1 _instance = new Singleton1(); static Singleton1() { } Singleton1() { } public static Singleton1 Instance { get { return _instance; } } } Now I wonder if this can be rewritten using auto properties like this? public sealed class Singleton2 { static Singleton2() { Instance = new Singleton2(); } Singleton2() { } public static Singleton2 Instance { get; private set; } } If its only a matter of readability I definitely prefer the second version, but I want to get it right.

  Read the article

• (Not So) Silly Objective-C inheritance problem when using property - GCC Bug?

  - by Ben Packard

  Update 2 - Many people are insisting I need to declare an iVar for the property. Some are saying not so, as I am using Modern Runtime (64 bit). I can confirm that I have been successfully using @property without iVars for months now. Therefore, I think the 'correct' answer is an explanation as to why on 64bit I suddenly have to explicitly declare the iVar when (and only when) i'm going to access it from a child class. The only one I've seen so far is a possible GCC bug (thanks Yuji). Not so simple after all... Update - I messed up one line of the original copy and paste - corrected. The @property call was missing (nonatomic, retain) but is a red herring - STILL NEED AN ANSWER! Thanks. I've been scratching my head with this for a couple of hours - I haven't used inheritance much. Here I have set up a simple Test B class that inherits from Test A, where an ivar is declared. But I get the compilation error that the variable is undeclared. This only happens when I add the property and synthesize declarations - works fine without them. TestA Header: #import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h> @interface TestA : NSObject { NSString *testString; } @end TestA Implementation is empty: #import "TestA.h" @implementation TestA @end TestB Header: #import <Cocoa/Cocoa.h> #import "TestA.h" @interface TestB : TestA { } @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *testProp; @end TestB Implementation (Error - 'testString' is undeclared) #import "TestB.h" @implementation TestB @synthesize testProp; - (void)testing{ NSLog(@"test ivar is %@", testString); } @end

  Read the article

• When are you truly forced to use UUID as part of the design?

  - by Pyrolistical

  I don't really see the point of UUID. I know the probability of a collision is effectively nil, but effectively nil is not even close to impossible. Can somebody give an example where you have no choice but to use UUID? From all the uses I've seen, I can see an alternative design without UUID. Sure the design might be slightly more complicated, but at least it doesn't have a non-zero probability of failure. UUID smells like global variables to me. There are many ways global variables make for simpler design, but its just lazy design.

  Read the article

• Stream classes ... design, pattern for creating views over streams

  - by ToxicAvenger

  A question regarding the design of stream classes - I need a pattern to create independent views over a single stream instance (in my case for reading). A view would be a consecutive part of the stream. The problem I have with the stream classes is that the state (reading or writing) is coupled with the underlying data/storage. So if I need to partition a stream into different segments (whether segments overlap or not doesn't matter), I cannot easily create views over the stream, the views would store start and end position. Because reading from a view - which would translate to reading from the underlying stream adjusted based on the start/end positions - would change the state of the underlying stream instance. So what I could do is take a read on a view instance, adjust the Position of the stream, read the chunks I need. But I cannot do that concurrently. Why is it designed in such a way, and what kind of pattern could I implement to create independet views over a single stream instance which would allow to read/write independently (and concurrently)?

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern for injecting methods into a class?

  - by glenn I.

  I have a set of classes that work together (I'm coding in javascript). There is one parent class and a number of child classes that are instantiated by the parent class. I have a number of clients of these classes that each need to add on one more methods to the parent or child classes. Rather than having each client inherit from these classes, which is doable but messy because of the child classes, I am having these clients pass functions into the parent class when they instantiate the main class. The main class creates the methods dynamically and the clients can call the methods like they were there all along. My questions are: is this a sensible thing to do? what would the design pattern be for what I am doing?

  Read the article

• How can I handle multiple views of a data object? Which design pattern is acceptable?

  - by tranquil.byte

  I have a person object. class Person { private $name; ... } I need to be able to change how they are displayed on the front-end ( visitors have control ). They can choose list view, grid view, photo view for example. class PersonDisplay { public function displayList() { // Query database // Output html to display in list mode } public function displayPhoto() { // Query database // Output html to display in photo mode } } Is this an acceptable way to handle the presentation of the items on the front-end or is there a specific design pattern I should be researching to help me with this task? Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas where this could go wrong or if this could potentially make maintenance a nightmare? The Person object was just an example very similiar to what I am using.

  Read the article

• web site development best practices, design or code by first?

  - by pygabriel

  I'm using an MVC framework to develop a web site, I've to care about the design in the sense of look and feel (views) and the code (models, controllers). I don't know what is the best way to proceed: code and design iteratively by small chunks? design first ? you've got the point

  Read the article

• DB Interface Design Optimization: Is it better to optimise for Fewer requests of smaller data size?

  - by Overflow

  The prevailing wisdom in webservices/web requests in general is to design your api such that you use as few requests as possible, and that each request returns therefore as much data as is needed In database design, the accepted wisdom is to design your queries to minimise size over the network, as opposed to minimizing the number of queries. They are both remote calls, so what gives?

  Read the article

• Which well known systems were built using design by contract?

  - by Kaka Woef

  To convince my team mates of the usefulness of design-by-contract, I am looking for well known examples of realistic systems that were built using design by contract. Pointers to realistic, critical evaluations are appreciated. In other words: what is the best example of a system successfully built using design-by-contract?

  Read the article

• c# class design - what can I use instead of "static abstract"?

  - by Ryan

  I want to do the following public abstract class MyAbstractClass { public static abstract int MagicId { get; } public static void DoSomeMagic() { // Need to get the MagicId value defined in the concrete implementation } } public class MyConcreteClass : MyAbstractClass { public static override int MagicId { get { return 123; } } } However I can't because you can't have static abstract members. I understand why I can't do this - any recommendations for a design that will achieve much the same result? (For clarity - what I am trying to do is provide a library with an abstract base class but the concrete versions MUST implement a few properties/methods themselves and yes, there are good reasons for keeping it static.)

  Read the article

• Running make for Nginx throws a “multiple target patterns” error

  - by Justin Meltzer

  When I run make inside my installed nginx directory I get the output: make -f objs/Makefile make[1]: Entering directory `/home/ec2-user/nginx/nginx-1.2.4' objs/Makefile:110: *** multiple target patterns. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/ec2-user/nginx/nginx-1.2.4' make: * [build] Error 2 I am on an Amazon Linux AMI. The steps I took from the beginning was wget /path/to/nginx/tarball tar xvf nginx-1.2.4.tar.gz cd nginx-1.2.4 ./configure --prefix=/nginx --a-bunch-of-other-options Then I ran make. Also I installed make by running sudo yum install make Please let me know if there's any other information I should be providing.

  Read the article

• Dynamic Forms: Pattern or AntiPattern?

  - by Segfault

  I'm sure you've seen it. The database has a bunch of tables called Forms, Controls,FormsControls, ControlSets, Actions and the program that queries these tables has a dynamically generated user interface. It will read all the forms, load a home page that has links to them all, or embed them in some tabbed or paged home page, and for each of those forms it will read the various text boxes, check boxes, radio buttons, submit buttons, combo boxes, labels and whatnot from the controls and form-to-control join tables, lay those elements out according to the database and link all the controls to logic according to other rules in the database. To me, this is an anti-pattern. It actually make the application more difficult to maintain because the design of it is now spread out into multiple different systems. Also, the database is not source controlled. Sure, it may make one or two changes go more quickly, after you've analyzed the program anyway to understand how to change the data and as long as you don't stray from the sort of changes that were anticipated and accounted for, but that's often just not sustainable. What say you?

  Read the article

• Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

  - by George Duckett

  I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern or best practice for passing a reference type to multiple classes vs a static class?

  - by Dave

  My .NET application creates HTML files, and as such, the structure looks like variable myData BuildHomePage() variable graph = new BuildGraphPage(myData) variable table = BuildTablePage(myData) BuildGraphPage and BuildTablePage both require access data, the myData object. In the above example, I've passed the myData object to 2 constructors. This is what I'm doing now, in my current project. The myData object, and it's properties are all readonly. The problem is, the number of pages which will require this object has grown. In the real project, there are currently 4, but the new spec is to have about 20. Passing this object to the constructor of each new object and assigning it to a field is a little time consuming, but not a hardship! This poses the question whether it's better practice to continue as I have, or to refactor and create a new static class for myData which can be referenced from any where in my project. I guess my abilities to use Google are poor, because I did try and find an appropriate pattern as I am sure this type of design must be common place but my results returned nothing. Is there a pattern which is suited, or do best practices lean towards one implementation over another.

  Read the article

• Highly scalable and dynamic "rule-based" applications?

  - by Prof Plum

  For a large enterprise app, everyone knows that being able to adjust to change is one of the most important aspects of design. I use a rule-based approach a lot of the time to deal with changing business logic, with each rule being stored in a DB. This allows for easy changes to be made without diving into nasty details. Now since C# cannot Eval("foo(bar);") this is accomplished by using formatted strings stored in rows that are then processed in JavaScript at runtime. This works fine, however, it is less than elegant, and would not be the most enjoyable for anyone else to pick up on once it becomes legacy. Is there a more elegant solution to this? When you get into thousands of rules that change fairly frequently it becomes a real bear, but this cannot be that uncommon of a problem that someone has not thought of a better way to do this. Any suggestions? Is this current method defensible? What are the alternatives? Edit: Just to clarify, this is a large enterprise app, so no matter which solution works, there will be plenty of people constantly maintaining its rules and data (around 10). Also, The data changes frequently enough to say that some sort of centralized server system is basically a must.

  Read the article

• Command-Query-Separation and multithreading safe interfaces

  - by Tobias Langner

  I like the command query separation pattern (from OOSC / Eiffel - basically you either return a value or you change the state of the class - but not both). This makes reasoning about the class easier and it is easier to write exception safe classes. Now, with multi threading, I run into a major problem: the separation of the query and the command basically invalidates the result from the query as anything can happen between those 2. So my question is: how do you handle command query separation in an multi-threaded environment? Clarification example: A stack with command query separation would have the following methods: push (command) pop (command - but does not return a value) top (query - returns the value) empty (query) The problem here is - I can get empty as status, but then I can not rely on top really retrieving an element since between the call of empty and the call of top, the stack might have been emptied. Same goes for pop & top. If I get an item using top, I can not be sure that the item that I pop is the same. This can be solved using external locks - but that's not exactly what I call threadsafe design.

  Read the article

• Constructs for wrapping a hardware state machine

  - by Henry Gomersall

  I am using a piece of hardware with a well defined C API. The hardware is stateful, with the relevant API calls needing to be in the correct order for the hardware to work properly. The API calls themselves will always return, passing back a flag that advises whether the call was successful, or if not, why not. The hardware will not be left in some ill defined state. In effect, the API calls advise indirectly of the current state of the hardware if the state is not correct to perform a given operation. It seems to be a pretty common hardware API style. My question is this: Is there a well established design pattern for wrapping such a hardware state machine in a high level language, such that consistency is maintained? My development is in Python. I ideally wish the hardware state machine to be abstracted to a much simpler state machine and wrapped in an object that represents the hardware. I'm not sure what should happen if an attempt is made to create multiple objects representing the same piece of hardware. I apologies for the slight vagueness, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and so am fishing for assistance of the description as well!

  Read the article

• Optimization ended up in casting an object at each method call

  - by Aybe

  I've been doing some optimization for the following piece of code : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color); } After profiling it about 70% of the time spent was in getting a context for drawing and disposing it. I ended up sketching the following overload : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, BitmapContext bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, bitmapContext); } Until here no problems, all the user has to do is to pass a context and performance is really great as a context is created/disposed one time only (previously it was a thousand times per second). The next step was to make it generic in the sense it doesn't depend on a particular framework for rendering (besides .NET obvisouly). So I wrote this method : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, IDisposable bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, (BitmapContext)bitmapContext); } Now every time a line is drawn the generic context is casted, this was unexpected for me. Are there any approaches for fixing this design issue ? Note : _bitmap is a WriteableBitmap from WPF BitmapContext is from WriteableBitmapEx library DrawLineBresenham is an extension method from WriteableBitmapEx

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102  | Next Page >