Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

Page 96/348 | < Previous Page | 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103  | Next Page >

  • Design pattern to use instead of multiple inheritance

    - by mizipzor
    Coming from a C++ background, Im used to multiple inheritance. I like the feeling of a shotgun squarely aimed at my foot. Nowadays, I work more in C# and Java, where you can only inherit one baseclass but implement any number of interfaces (did I get the terminology right?). For example, lets consider two classes that implement a common interface but different (yet required) baseclasses: public class TypeA : CustomButtonUserControl, IMagician { public void DoMagic() { // ... } } public class TypeB : CustomTextUserControl, IMagician { public void DoMagic() { // ... } } Both classes are UserControls so I cant substitute the base class. Both needs to implement the DoMagic function. My problem now is that both implementations of the function are identical. And I hate copy-and-paste code. The (possible) solutions: I naturally want TypeA and TypeB to share a common baseclass, where I can write that identical function definition just once. However, due to having the limit of just one baseclass, I cant find a place along the hierarchy where it fits. One could also try to implement a sort of composite pattern. Putting the DoMagic function in a separate helper class, but the function here needs (and modifies) quite a lot of internal variables/fields. Sending them all as (reference) parameters would just look bad. My gut tells me that the adapter pattern could have a place here, some class to convert between the two when necessery. But it also feels hacky. I tagged this with language-agnostic since it applies to all languages that use this one-baseclass-many-interfaces approach. Also, please point out if I seem to have misunderstood any of the patterns I named. In C++ I would just make a class with the private fields, that function implementation and put it in the inheritance list. Whats the proper approach in C#/Java and the like?

    Read the article

  • Modeling related objects and their templates

    - by Duddle
    Hello everybody! I am having trouble correctly modeling related objects that can use templates. This is not homework, but part of a small project in the university. In this application the user can add several elements, which can either be passive or active. Each concrete element has different attributes, these must be set by the user. See diagram 1: Since the user will create many elements, we want there to be templates for each type of element, so some of the attributes are filled in automatically. See diagram 2: In my opinion, this is a bad design. For example, to get all possible templates for a PassiveElementA-object, there has to be a list/set somewhere that only holds PassiveElementATemplate-objects. There has to be a separate list for each subclass of Element. So if you wanted to add a new PassiveElement-child, you also have to edit the class which holds all these separate lists. I cannot figure out a good way to solve this problem. Since the concrete classes (i.e. PassiveElementA, ..., PassiveElementZ) have so many different attributes, many of the design patterns I know do not work. Thanks in advance for any hints, and sorry for my bad English.

    Read the article

  • Factory Pattern: Determining concrete factory class instantiation?

    - by Chris
    I'm trying to learn patterns and I'm stuck on determining how or where a Factory Pattern determines what class to instanciate. If I have a Application that calls the factory and sends it, say, an xml config file to determine what type of action to take, where does that logic for interpreting the config file happen? THE FACTORY using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace myNamespace { public abstract class SourceFactory { abstract public UploadSource getUploadSource(); } public class TextSourceFactory : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new TextUploadSource(); } } public class XmlSourceFacotry : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new XmlUploadSource(); } } public class SqlSourceFactory : SourceFactory { public override UploadSource getUploadSource() { return new SqlUploadSource(); } } } THE CLASSES using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace myNamespace { public abstract class UploadSource { abstract public void Execute(); } public class TextUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed a text upload source"); } } public class XmlUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed an XML upload source"); } } public class SqlUploadSource : UploadSource { public override void Execute() { Console.WriteLine("You executed a SQL upload source"); } } }

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to avoid spaghetti code over the years?

    - by Yoni Roit
    I've had several programming jobs. Each one with 20-50 developers, project going on for 3-5 years. Every time it's the same. Some programmers are bright, some are average. Everyone has their CS degree, everyone read design patterns. Intentions are good, people are trying hard to write good code but still after a couple of years the code turns into spaghetti. Changes in module A suddenly break module B. There are always these parts of code that no one can understand except for the person who wrote it. Changing infrastructure is impossible and backwards compatibility issues prevent good features to get in. Half of the time you just want to rewrite everything from scratch. And people more experienced than me treat this as normal. Is it? Does it have to be? What can I do to avoid this or should I accept it as a fact of life? Edit: Guys, I am impressed with the amount and quality of responses here. This site and its community rock!

    Read the article

  • Design suggestion for expression tree evaluation with time-series data

    - by Lirik
    I have a (C#) genetic program that uses financial time-series data and it's currently working but I want to re-design the architecture to be more robust. My main goals are: sequentially present the time-series data to the expression trees. allow expression trees to access previous data rows when needed. to optimize performance of the data access while evaluating the expression trees. keep a common interface so various types of data can be used. Here are the possible approaches I've thought about: I can evaluate the expression tree by passing in a data row into the root node and let each child node use the same data row. I can evaluate the expression tree by passing in the data row index and letting each node get the data row from a shared DataSet (currently I'm passing the row index and going to multiple synchronized arrays to get the data). Hybrid: an immutable data set is accessible by all of the expression trees and each expression tree is evaluated by passing in a data row. The benefit of the first approach is that the data row is being passed into the expression tree and there is no further query done on the data set (which should increase performance in a multithreaded environment). The drawback is that the expression tree does not have access to the rest of the data (in case some of the functions need to do calculations using previous data rows). The benefit of the second approach is that the expression trees can access any data up to the latest data row, but unless I specify what that row is, I'll have to iterate through the rows and figure out which one is the last one. The benefit of the hybrid is that it should generally perform better and still provide access to the earlier data. It supports two basic "views" of data: the latest row and the previous rows. Do you guys know of any design patterns or do you have any tips that can help me build this type of system? Should I use a DataSet to hold and present the data, or are there more efficient ways to present rows of data while maintaining a simple interface? FYI: All of my code is written in C#.

    Read the article

  • Which book should I choose?

    - by sebastianlarsson
    Hi guys, I'm looking for a good read on object oriented design. The two books I'm currently looking Head First Design Patterns and Head First Object object-oriented analysis & design. They seem very similar when looking at the contents and browsing through available sample text. Which one would be the best choice? About myself: I have a bachelor in computer science and I am currently studying Msc. Software Quality Engineering (read Software Engineering with focus on Quality). I am already confident in object-oriented design and have a lot of programming courses in my backpack. I have done games in c++, courses in advanced java programming (I am SCJP certified), but my preferred language is C#. I have also worked with Java for the last 7 months while studying. I am currently also studying for certificates in C# (apart from my usual studies). So I believe I have the prerequisites of actually understanding the contents of both books. Reason: I just want to be better and keep evolving as a programmer. I think it is fun. I believe Bert Bates and Kathy Sierra are involved in both these books and I have previously read their SCJP preparation book in java. I really do enjoy their style of writing. Other books which I am considering are: Clean Code: A Handbook Of Agile Software Craftsmanship Thx in advance Sebastian

    Read the article

  • How to get rid of the GUI access from shared library.

    - by Inso Reiges
    Hello, In my project i have a shared library with cross-platform code that provides a very convenient abstraction for a number of its clients. To be more specific, this library provides data access to encrypted files generated by main application on a number of platforms. There is a great deal of complicated code there that implements cryptographic protocols and as such is very error-prone and should be shared as much as possible across clients and platforms. However parsing all this encrypted stuff requires asking user for a number of different secrets ones in a while. The secret can be either a password, a number of shared passwords or a public key file and this list is a hot target for extension in the future. I can't really ask the user for any of those secrets beforehand from main application, because i really don't know what i need to ask for until i start working with the encrypted data directly in the library code. So i will have to create dialogs and call them from the library code. However i really see this as a bad idea, because (among other things) there is a possibility of a windows service using it and services can't have GUI access. The question is, are there any known ways or patterns to get rid of the GUI calls that are suitable for my case? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How much of STL is too much?

    - by Darius Kucinskas
    I am using a lot of STL code with std::for_each, bind, and so on, but I noticed that sometimes STL usage is not good idea. For example if you have a std::vector and want to do one action on each item of the vector, your first idea is to use this: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), Foo()) and it is elegant and ok, for a while. But then comes the first set of bug reports and you have to modify code. Now you should add parameter to call Foo(), so now it becomes: std::for_each(vec.begin(), vec.end(), std::bind2nd(Foo(), X)) but that is only temporary solution. Now the project is maturing and you understand business logic much better and you want to add new modifications to code. It is at this point that you realize that you should use old good: for(std::vector::iterator it = vec.begin(); it != vec.end(); ++it) Is this happening only to me? Do you recognise this kind of pattern in your code? Have you experience similar anti-patterns using STL?

    Read the article

  • What do I name this class whose sole purpose is to report failure?

    - by Blair Holloway
    In our system, we have a number of classes whose construction must happen asynchronously. We wrap the construction process in another class that derives from an IConstructor class: class IConstructor { public: virtual void Update() = 0; virtual Status GetStatus() = 0; virtual int GetLastError() = 0; }; There's an issue with the design of the current system - the functions that create the IConstructor-derived classes are often doing additional work which can also fail. At that point, instead of getting a constructor which can be queried for an error, a NULL pointer is returned. Restructuring the code to avoid this is possible, but time-consuming. In the meantime, I decided to create a constructor class which we create and return in case of error, instead of a NULL pointer: class FailedConstructor : public IConstructor public: virtual void Update() {} virtual Status GetStatus() { return STATUS_ERROR; } virtual int GetLastError() { return m_errorCode; } private: int m_errorCode; }; All of the above this the setup for a mundane question: what do I name the FailedConstructor class? In our current system, FailedConstructor would indicate "a class which constructs an instance of Failed", not "a class which represents a failed attempt to construct another class". I feel like it should be named for one of the design patterns, like Proxy or Adapter, but I'm not sure which.

    Read the article

  • 'Forward-Compatible' Program Design

    - by Jeffrey Kern
    The majority of my questions I've asked here so far on StackOverflow have been how to implement individual concepts and techniques towards developing a software-based NES clone via the XNA environment. The small samples that I've thrown together on my PC work relatively great and everything. Except I hit a brick wall. How do I merge all of these samples together. Having proof-of-concept is amazing, except when you need it to go beyond just that. I now have samples strewn about that I'm trying to merge, some of them incomplete. And now I'm stuck with the chicken-and-the-egg situation of where I would like to incorporate these samples together, to make sure they work, but I cannot without test data. And I don't have tools to create test data, because they'd need to be based off of the individual pieces that need to be put together. In my mind, I'm having nightmares with circular reference. For my sample data, I am hoping to save it in XML and write a specification - and then make sample data by hand - but I'm too paranoid of manually creating an XML file full of incorrect data and blaming it on my code, or vice-versa. It doesn't help that the end-result of my work is graphic-oriented, which makes it interseting how a graphic on the screen can be visualized in XML Nodes. I guess, my question is this: What design patterns and disciplines exist in the coding world that address this type of concern? I've always relied on brute-force coding and restarting a project with a whole new code base in attempts to further along my goals, but I doubt that would be the best way to do so. Within my college career, the majority of my programming was to work on simple projects that came out of a book, or with a given correct data set and a verifyable result. I don't have that, as my own design documents that I am going by could be terribly wrong.

    Read the article

  • Implementation/interface inheritance design question.

    - by Neil G
    I would like to get the stackoverflow community's opinion on the following three design patterns. The first is implementation inheritance; the second is interface inheritance; the third is a middle ground. My specific question is: Which is best? implementation inheritance: class Base { X x() const = 0; void UpdateX(A a) { y_ = g(a); } Y y_; } class Derived: Base { X x() const { return f(y_); } } interface inheritance: class Base { X x() const = 0; void UpdateX(A a) = 0; } class Derived: Base { X x() const { return x_; } void UpdateX(A a) { x_ = f(g(a)); } X x_; } middle ground: class Base { X x() const { return x_; } void UpdateX(A a) = 0; X x_; } class Derived: Base { void UpdateX(A a) { x_ = f(g(a)); } } I know that many people prefer interface inheritance to implementation inheritance. However, the advantage of the latter is that with a pointer to Base, x() can be inlined and the address of x_ can be statically calculated.

    Read the article

  • Auto increment with a Unit Of Work

    - by Derick
    Context I'm building a persistence layer to abstract different types of databases that I'll be needing. On the relational part I have mySQL, Oracle and PostgreSQL. Let's take the following simplified MySQL tables: CREATE TABLE Contact ( ID varchar(15), NAME varchar(30) ); CREATE TABLE Address ( ID varchar(15), CONTACT_ID varchar(15), NAME varchar(50) ); I use code to generate system specific alpha numeric unique ID's fitting 15 chars in this case. Thus, if I insert a Contact record with it's Addresses I have my generated Contact.ID and Address.CONTACT_IDs before committing. I've created a Unit of Work (amongst others) as per Martin Fowler's patterns to add transaction support. I'm using a key based Identity Map in the UoW to track the changed records in memory. It works like a charm for the scenario above, all pretty standard stuff so far. The question scenario comes in when I have a database that is not under my control and the ID fields are auto-increment (or in Oracle sequences). In this case I do not have the db generated Contact.ID beforehand, so when I create my Address I do not have a value for Address.CONTACT_ID. The transaction has not been started on the DB session since all is kept in the Identity Map in memory. Question: What is a good approach to address this? (Avoiding unnecessary db round trips) Some ideas: Retrieve the last ID: I can do a call to the database to retrieve the last Id like: SELECT Auto_increment FROM information_schema.tables WHERE table_name='Contact'; But this is MySQL specific and probably something similar can be done for the other databases. If do this then would need to do the 1st insert, get the ID and then update the children (Address.CONTACT_IDs) – all in the current transaction context.

    Read the article

  • OOP, Interface Design and Encapsulation

    - by Mau
    C# project, but it could be applied to any OO languages. 3 interfaces interacting: public interface IPublicData {} public /* internal */ interface IInternalDataProducer { string GetData(); } public interface IPublicWorker { IPublicData DoWork(); IInternalDataProducer GetInternalProducer(); } public class Engine { Engine(IPublicWorker worker) {} IPublicData Run() { DoSomethingWith(worker.GetInternalProducer().GetData()); return worker.DoWork(); } } Clearly Engine is parametric in the actual worker that does the job. A further source of parametrization is how we produce the 'internal data' via IInternalDataProducer. This implementation requires IInternalDataProducer to be public because it's part of the declaration of the public interface IPublicWorker. However, I'd like it to be internal since it's only used by the engine. A solution is make the IPublicWorker produce the internal data itself, but that's not very elegant since there's only a couple of ways of producing it (while there are many more worker implementations), therefore it's nice to delegate to a couple of separate concrete classes. Moreover, the IInternalDataProducer is used in more places inside the engine, so it's good for the engine to pass around the actual object. I'm looking for elegant ideas/patterns. Cheers :-)

    Read the article

  • When is factory method better than simple factory and vice versa?

    - by Bruce
    Hi all Working my way through the Head First Design Patterns book. I believe I understand the simple factory and the factory method, but I'm having trouble seeing what advantages factory method brings over simple factory. If an object A uses a simple factory to create its B objects, then clients can create it like this: A a = new A(new BFactory()); whereas if an object uses a factory method, a client can create it like this: A a = new ConcreteA(); // ConcreteA contains a method for instantiating the same Bs that the BFactory above creates, with the method hardwired into the subclass of A, ConcreteA. So in the case of the simple factory, clients compose A with a B factory, whereas with the factory method, the client chooses the appropriate subclass for the types of B it wants. There really doesn't seem to be much to choose between them. Either you have to choose which BFactory you want to compose A with, or you have to choose the right subclass of A to give you the Bs. Under what circumstances is one better than the other? Thanks all!

    Read the article

  • Why does C# not provide the C++ style 'friend' keyword?

    - by Ash
    The C++ friend keyword allows a class A to designate class B as it's friend. This allows Class B to access the private/protected members of class A. I've never read anything as to why this was left out of C# (and VB.NET). Most answers to this earlier StackOverflow question seem to be saying it is a useful part of C++ and there are good reasons to use it. In my experience I'd have to agree. Another question seems to me to be really asking how to do something similar to friend in a C# application. While the answers generally revolve around nested classes, it doesn't seem quite as elegant as using the friend keyword. The original Design Patterns book uses the friend keyword regularly throughout its examples. So in summary, why is friend missing from C#, and what is the "best practice" way (or ways) of simulating it in C#? (By the way, the "internal" keyword is not the same thing, it allows ALL classes within the entire assembly to access internal members, friend allows you to give access to a class to just one other class.)

    Read the article

  • MSMQ - Message Queue Abstraction and Pattern

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi All, Let me define the problem first and why a messagequeue has been chosen. I have a datalayer that will be transactional and EXTREMELY insert heavy and rather then attempt to deal with these issues when they occur I am hoping to implement my application from the ground up with this in mind. I have decided to tackle this problem by using the Microsoft Message Queue and perform inserts as time permits asynchronously. However I quickly ran into a problem. Certain inserts that I perform may need to be recalled (ie: retrieved) immediately (imagine this is for POS system and what happens if you need to recall the last transaction - one that still hasn’t been inserted). The way I decided to tackle this problem is by abstracting the MessageQueue and combining it in my data access layer thereby creating the illusion of a single set of data being returned to the user of the datalayer (I have considered the other issues that occur in such a scenario (ie: essentially dirty reads and such) and have concluded for my purposes I can control these issues). However this is where things get a little nasty... I’ve worked out how to get the messages back and such (trivial enough problem) but where I am stuck is; how do I create a generic (or at least somewhat generic) way of querying my message queue? One where I can minimize the duplication between the SQL queries and MessageQueue queries. I have considered using LINQ (but have very limited understanding of the technology) and have also attempted an implementation with Predicates which so far is pretty smelly. Are there any patterns for such a problem that I can utilize? Am I going about this the wrong way? Does anyone have an of their own ideas about how I can tackle this problem? Does anyone even understand what I am talking about? :-) Any and ALL input would be highly appreciated and seriously considered… Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • Object Design catalog and resources

    - by Tauren
    I'm looking for web sites, books, or other resources that provide a catalog of object designs used in common scenarios. I'm not looking for generic design patterns, but for samples of actual object designs that were used to solve real problems. For instance, I'm about to build an internal messaging system for a web application, similar to Facebook's messaging system. This system will allow administrators to send messages to all members, to selected groups of members, or to individuals. Members can send messages to other members or groups of members. Fairly common stuff and a feature that I'm sure thousands of web applications require. I know each situation is different and there are a million ways to design this solution. Although this scenario isn't really all that complex, I'm sure the basic design of the necessary objects and relationships for a system like this has already been done many times. It would be nice to review other similar designs before building my own. Is there a place where people can share their designs and others can browse/search through the catalog to review and provide feedback on them? StackOverflow could be used to a degree for this, but doesn't really provide a catalog of designs. Any other resources that would relate?

    Read the article

  • How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

    - by Support - multilanguage SO
    For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

    Read the article

  • Testing When Correctness is Poorly Defined?

    - by dsimcha
    I generally try to use unit tests for any code that has easily defined correct behavior given some reasonably small, well-defined set of inputs. This works quite well for catching bugs, and I do it all the time in my personal library of generic functions. However, a lot of the code I write is data mining code that basically looks for significant patterns in large datasets. Correct behavior in this case is often not well defined and depends on a lot of different inputs in ways that are not easy for a human to predict (i.e. the math can't reasonably be done by hand, which is why I'm using a computer to solve the problem in the first place). These inputs can be very complex, to the point where coming up with a reasonable test case is near impossible. Identifying the edge cases that are worth testing is extremely difficult. Sometimes the algorithm isn't even deterministic. Usually, I do the best I can by using asserts for sanity checks and creating a small toy test case with a known pattern and informally seeing if the answer at least "looks reasonable", without it necessarily being objectively correct. Is there any better way to test these kinds of cases?

    Read the article

  • Issue with class design to model user preferences for different classes

    - by Mulone
    Hi all, I'm not sure how to design a couple of classes in my app. Basically that's a situation: each user can have many preferences each preference can be referred to an object of different classes (e.g. album, film, book etc) the preference is expressed as a set of values (e.g. score, etc). The problem is that many users can have preferences on the same objects, e.g.: John: score=5 for filmid=apocalypsenow Paul: score=3 for filmid=apocalypsenow And naturally I don't want to duplicate the object film in each user. So I could create a class called "preference" holding a score and then a target object, something like: User{ hasMany preferences } Preference{ belongsTo User double score Film target Album target //etc } and then define just one target. Then I would create an interface for the target Classes (album, film etc): Interface canBePreferred{ hasMany preferences } And implement all of those classes. This could work, but it looks pretty ugly and it would requires a lot of joins to work. Do you have some patterns I could use to model this nicely? Cheers, Mulone

    Read the article

  • Suggestions for opening the Rails toolbox to design a challenge game?

    - by keruilin
    How would you suggest designing a challenge system as part of a food-eating game so that it's automated as possible? All RoR tools, design patterns and logic are at your disposal (e.g., admin consoles, crontab, arch, etc.). Prize goes to whoever can suggest the simplest and most-automated design! Here are the requirements: User has many challenges. Badge has many challenges. (A unique badge is awarded for each challenge won.) Only one challenge can run at a time. Each challenge has a limited number of days that it runs. For example, one challenge can run 3 days, while another runs 7 days. Challenges can be seasonal. For example, "Eat 13 Pumpkins" only runs during the Fall. New challenges are added to the game on an ongoing basis. For example, a new challenge every week. Each challenge has a certain probability of being selected to run. For example, "Eat 10 Pies" challenge has 10% chance of being selected to run. As each new challenge is added to the database, I want the probabilities of running to change dynamically. I want to avoid the scenario where I'm manually updating a database field just to change the probability from 10% to 5%, for example. Challenges act like Easter eggs. Challenge icons pop-up at different places on the webpage. User is awarded a badge for successfully completing a challenge, but only when it's active. There is some wait time between each challenge. Between 1 and 7 days. Which wait time is random, but the probability of the wait time being short is high and the probability of it being a long wait time is low.

    Read the article

  • What do you call a generalized (non-GUI-related) "Model-View-Controller" architecture?

    - by dcuccia
    I am currently refactoring code that coordinates multiple hardware components for data acquisition, and feeling a bit like I'm recreating the wheel. In particular, an MVC-like pattern seems to be emerging. Except, this has nothing to do with a GUI and I'm worried that I'm forcing this particular pattern where another might be more appropriate. Here's my scenario: Individual hardware "component" classes obey interface contracts for each hardware type. Previously, component instances were orchestrated by a single monolithic InstrumentController class, which relied heavily on configuration + branching logic for executing a specific acquisition sequence. After an iteration, I have a separate controller for each component, with these controllers all managed by a small InstrumentControllerBase (or its derivatives). The composite system will receive "input" either programmatically or via inter-hardware component triggering - in either case these interactions are routed to, and handled by, the appropriate controller. So, I have something that feels MVC-esque, but I don't know if that's because I'm forcing the point. With little direct MVC experience in application development, it's hard to know if I'm just trying to make my scenario fit MVC, where another pattern might be a good alternative or complimentary. My problem is, search results and wiki documentation of these family of patterns seems to immediately drop me into GUI-specific discussions. I understand "M means Model data and the V means View" - but do you call the superset pattern? Component-Commander-Controller? Whence can I exhume examples exemplary?

    Read the article

  • How to understand other people's CSS architectures?

    - by John
    I am reasonably good with CSS. However, when working with someone else's CSS, it's difficult for me to see the "bigger picture" in their architecture (but i have no problem when working with a CSS sheet I wrote myself). For example, I have no problems using Firebug to isolate and fix cross browser compatibility issues, or fixing a floating issue, or changing the height on a particular element. But if I'm asked to do something drastic such as, "I want the right sidebars of pages A, B, C and D to have a red border. I want the right side bars of pages E, F and G to have a blue border if and only if the user mouses over", then it takes me time a long time to map out all the CSS inheritance rules to see the "bigger picture". For some reason, I don't encounter the same difficulty with backend code. After a quick debriefing of how a feature works, and a quick inspection of the controller and model code, I will feel comfortable with the architecture. I will think, "it's reasonable to assume that there will be an Employee class that inherits from the Person Class that's used by a Department controller". If I discover inconvenient details that aren't consistent with overall architectural style, I am confident that I can hammer things back in place. With someone else's CSS work, it's much harder for me to see the "relationships" between different classes, and when and how the classes are used. When there are many inheritance rules, I feel overwhelmed. I'm having trouble articulating my question and issues... All I want to know is, why is it so much harder for me to see the bigger picture in someone else's CSS architecture than compared to someone else's business logic layer? **Does it have any thing to do with CSS being a relatively new technology, and there aren't many popular design patterns?

    Read the article

  • Large Switch statements: Bad OOP?

    - by Mystere Man
    I've always been of the opinion that large switch statements are a symptom of bad OOP design. In the past, I've read articles that discuss this topic and they have provided altnerative OOP based approaches, typically based on polymorphism to instantiate the right object to handle the case. I'm now in a situation that has a monsterous switch statement based on a stream of data from a TCP socket in which the protocol consists of basically newline terminated command, followed by lines of data, followed by an end marker. The command can be one of 100 different commands, so I'd like to find a way to reduce this monster switch statement to something more manageable. I've done some googling to find the solutions I recall, but sadly, Google has become a wasteland of irrelevant results for many kinds of queries these days. Are there any patterns for this sort of problem? Any suggestions on possible implementations? One thought I had was to use a dictionary lookup, matching the command text to the object type to instantiate. This has the nice advantage of merely creating a new object and inserting a new command/type in the table for any new commands. However, this also has the problem of type explosion. I now need 100 new classes, plus I have to find a way to interface them cleanly to the data model. Is the "one true switch statement" really the way to go? I'd appreciate your thoughts, opinions, or comments.

    Read the article

  • Unsure how to come up with a good design

    - by Mewzer
    Hello there, I am having trouble coming up with a good design for a group of classes and was hoping that someone could give me some guidance on best practices. I have kept the classes and member functions generic to make the problem simpler. Essentially, I have three classes (lets call them A, B, and C) as follows: class A { ... int GetX( void ) const { return x; }; int GetY( void ) const { return y; }; private: B b; // NOTE: A "has-a" B int x; int y; }; class B { ... void SetZ( int value ) { z = value }; private: int z; C c; // NOTE: B "has-a" C }; class C { private: ... void DoSomething(int x, int y){ ... }; void DoSomethingElse( int z ){ ... }; }; My problem is as follows: Class A uses its member variables "x" and "y" a lot internally. Class B uses its member variable "z" a lot internally. Class B needs to call C::DoSomething(), but C::DoSomething() needs the values of X and Y in class A passed in as arguments. C::DoSomethingElse() is called from say another class (e.g. D), but it needs to invoke SetZ() in class B!. As you can see, it is a bit of a mess as all the classes need information from one another!. Are there any design patterns I can use?. Any ideas would be much appreciated ....

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103  | Next Page >