Search Results

Search found 16903 results on 677 pages for 'single responsibility'.

Page 1/677 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Single Responsibility Principle: Responsibility unknown

  - by lurkerbelow

  I store sessions in a SessionManager. The session manager has a dependency to ISessionPersister. SessionManager private readonly ISessionPersister sessionPersister; public SessionManager(ISessionPersister sessionPersister) { this.sessionPersister = sessionPersister; } ISessionPersister public interface ISessionPersister : IDisposable { void PersistSessions(Dictionary<string, ISession> sessions); } Q: If my application shuts down how / where do I call PersistSessions? Who is responsible? First Approach: Use Dispose in SessionManager protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (disposing) { if (this.sessionPersister != null && this.sessionMap != null && this.sessionMap.Count > 0) { this.sessionPersister.PersistSessions(this.sessionMap); } } } Is that the way to go or are there any better solutions?

  Read the article

• Something confusing about Single Responsibility Principle

  - by user1483278

  1) In fact if two responsibilities are always expected to change at the same time you arguably should not separate them into different classes as this would lead, to quote Martin, to a "smell of Needless Complexity". The same is the case for responsibilities that never change - the behavior is invariant, and there is no need to split it. I assume even if non-related responsibilities are always expected to change for the same reason ( or if they never change ), we still shouldn't put them in the same class, since this would still violate high cohesion principle? 2) I've found two quite different definitions for SRP: Single Responsibility Principle says that a subsystem, module, class, or even a function, should not have more than one reason to change. and There should never be more than one reason for a class to change Doesn't the latter definition narrow SRP to a class level? If so, isn't first quote wrong by claiming that SRP can also be applied at subsystem, module and function levels? thank you

  Read the article

• Avoiding the Anaemic Domain - How to decide what single responsibility a class has

  - by thecapsaicinkid

  Even after reading a bunch I'm still falling into the same trap. I have a class, usually an enity. I need to implement more than one, similar operations on this type. It feels wrong to (seemingly arbitrarily) choose one of these operations to belong inside the entity and push the others out to a separate class; I end up pushing all operations to service classes and am left with an anaemic domain. As a crude example, imagine the typical Employee class with numeric properties to hold how many paid days the employee is entitled to for both sickness and holiday and a collection of days taken for each. public class Employee { public int PaidHolidayAllowance { get; set; } public int PaidSicknessAllowance { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Holiday> Holidays { get; set; } public IEnumerable<SickDays> SickDays { get; set; } } I want two operations, one to calculate remaining holiday, another for remaining paid sick days. It seems strange to include say, CalculateRemaingHoliday() in the Employee class and bump CalculateRemainingPaidSick() to some PaidSicknessCalculator class. I would end up with a PaidSicknessCalculator and a RemainingHolidayCalculator and the anaemic Employee entity as seen above. The other alternative would be to put both operations in the Employee class and kick Single Responsibility to the curb. That doesn't make for particularly maintainable code. I suppose the Employee class should have some initialisation/validation logic (not accepting negative alowances etc.) So maybe I just stick to basic initialisation and validation in the entities themselves and be happy with my separate calculator classes. Or maybe I should be asking myself if Anaemic Domain is actually causing me some tangible problems with my code.

  Read the article

• Single IBAction for multiple UIButtons versus single IBAction for single UIButton

  - by Miraaj

  While using story-board there are two different approaches which my team mates follow: Approach 1: To bind unique action with each button, ie: Done button - binded to - doneButtonAction Cancel button - binded to - cancelButtonAction OR Approach 2: To bind single action to multiple buttons, ie: Done button - binded to - commonButtonAction Cancel button - binded to - commonButtonAction Then in commonButtonAction they prefer to use switch case like this: - (IBAction)commonButtonAction:(id)sender { UIButton *button = (UIButton *)sender; switch (button.tag) { case 201: // done button [self doneButtonAction:sender]; break; case 202: // cancel button [self cancelButtonAction:sender]; break; default: break; } } - (void)cancelButtonAction:(id)sender { // no interesting stuff, simple dismiss of view :-( } - (void)doneButtonAction:(id)sender { // some interesting stuff ;-) } Reasoning which they give to follow approach 2 is - in each view controller during code walk through anyone can easily identify where to find code related to button actions. While others discard this idea because they say that adding an extra switch case is unnecessary and is not a common practice. What are your views?

  Read the article

• Struggling with the Single Responsibility Principle

  - by AngryBird

  Consider this example: I have a website. It allows users to make posts (can be anything) and add tags that describe the post. In the code, I have two classes that represent the post and tags. Lets call these classes Post and Tag. Post takes care of creating posts, deleting posts, updating posts, etc. Tag takes care of creating tags, deleting tags, updating tags, etc. There is one operation that is missing. The linking of tags to posts. I am struggling with who should do this operation. It could fit equally well in either class. On one hand, the Post class could have a function that takes a Tag as a parameter, and then stores it in a list of tags. On the other hand, the Tag class could have a function that takes a Post as a parameter and links the Tag to the Post. The above is just an example of my problem. I am actually running into this with multiple classes that are all similar. It could fit equally well in both. Short of actually putting the functionality in both classes, what conventions or design styles exist to help me solve this problem. I am assuming there has to be something short of just picking one? Maybe putting it in both classes is the correct answer?

  Read the article

• Confused about implementing Single Responsibility Principle

  - by HichemSeeSharp

  Please bear with me if the question looks not well structured. To put you in the context of my issue: I am building an application that invoices vehicles stay duration in a parking. In addition to the stay service there are some other services. Each service has its own calculation logic. Here is an illustration (please correct me if the design is wrong): public abstract class Service { public int Id { get; set; } public bool IsActivated { get; set; } public string Name { get; set } public decimal Price { get; set; } } public class VehicleService : Service { //MTM : many to many public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Vehicles { get; set; } } public class StayService : VehicleService { } public class Vehicle { public int Id { get; set; } public string ChassisNumber { get; set; } public DateTime? EntryDate { get; set; } public DateTime? DeliveryDate { get; set; } //... public virtual ICollection<MTMVehicleService> Services{ get; set; } } Now, I am focusing on the stay service as an example: I would like to know at invoicing time which class(es) would be responsible for generating the invoice item for the service and for each vehicle? This should calculate the duration cost knowing that the duration could be invoiced partially so the like is as follows: not yet invoiced stay days * stay price per day. At this moment I have InvoiceItemsGenerator do everything but I am aware that there is a better design.

  Read the article

• How to determine if class meets single responsibility principle ?

  - by user1483278

  Single Responsibility Principle is based on high cohesion principle. The difference between the two is that highly cohesive classes feature a set of responsibilities that are strongly related, while classes adhering to SRP have just one responsibility. But how do we determine whether particular class features a set of responsibilities and is thus just highly cohesive, or whether it has only one responsibility and is thus adhering to SRP? Namely, isn't it more or less subjective, since some may find class very granular ( and as such will consider a class as adhering to SRP ), while others may find it not granular enough?

  Read the article

• C# Chain-of-responsibility with delegates

  - by nettguy

  For my understanding purpose i have implemented Chain-Of-Responsibility pattern. //Abstract Base Type public abstract class CustomerServiceDesk { protected CustomerServiceDesk _nextHandler; public abstract void ServeCustomers(Customer _customer); public void SetupHadler(CustomerServiceDesk _nextHandler) { this._nextHandler = _nextHandler; } } public class FrontLineServiceDesk:CustomerServiceDesk { public override void ServeCustomers(Customer _customer) { if (_customer.ComplaintType == ComplaintType.General) { Console.WriteLine(_customer.Name + " Complaints are registered ; will be served soon by FrontLine Help Desk.."); } else { Console.WriteLine(_customer.Name + " is redirected to Critical Help Desk"); _nextHandler.ServeCustomers(_customer); } } } public class CriticalIssueServiceDesk:CustomerServiceDesk { public override void ServeCustomers(Customer _customer) { if (_customer.ComplaintType == ComplaintType.Critical) { Console.WriteLine(_customer.Name + "Complaints are registered ; will be served soon by Critical Help Desk"); } else if (_customer.ComplaintType == ComplaintType.Legal) { Console.WriteLine(_customer.Name + "is redirected to Legal Help Desk"); _nextHandler.ServeCustomers(_customer); } } } public class LegalissueServiceDesk :CustomerServiceDesk { public override void ServeCustomers(Customer _customer) { if (_customer.ComplaintType == ComplaintType.Legal) { Console.WriteLine(_customer.Name + "Complaints are registered ; will be served soon by legal help desk"); } } } public class Customer { public string Name { get; set; } public ComplaintType ComplaintType { get; set; } } public enum ComplaintType { General, Critical, Legal } void Main() { CustomerServiceDesk _frontLineDesk = new FrontLineServiceDesk(); CustomerServiceDesk _criticalSupportDesk = new CriticalIssueServiceDesk(); CustomerServiceDesk _legalSupportDesk = new LegalissueServiceDesk(); _frontLineDesk.SetupHadler(_criticalSupportDesk); _criticalSupportDesk.SetupHadler(_legalSupportDesk); Customer _customer1 = new Customer(); _customer1.Name = "Microsoft"; _customer1.ComplaintType = ComplaintType.General; Customer _customer2 = new Customer(); _customer2.Name = "SunSystems"; _customer2.ComplaintType = ComplaintType.Critical; Customer _customer3 = new Customer(); _customer3.Name = "HP"; _customer3.ComplaintType = ComplaintType.Legal; _frontLineDesk.ServeCustomers(_customer1); _frontLineDesk.ServeCustomers(_customer2); _frontLineDesk.ServeCustomers(_customer3); } Question Without breaking the chain-of-responsibility ,how can i apply delegates and events to rewrite the code?

  Read the article

• How to apply Single Responsibility Principle to a service class

  - by Shekhar

  Hello Suppose we are designing a UserServiceImpl class which does CRUD(Create, Read, Update, and Delete) operations. In my view Create, Read, Update, and Delete are four reasons for a class to change. Does this class violates Single Responsibility Principle? If it violates, then should we have four classes like CreateUserServiceImpl, ReadUserServiceImpl, UpdateUserServiceImpl, and DeleteUserServiceImpl. Isn't it an overkill to have lots of classes? Thanks Shekhar

  Read the article

• Javacript in html - Using single quote inside another single quote

  - by Ashish Nair

  document.getElementById("img").innerHTML="< img src='/sitepath/"+imgg+".jpg' width='72' height='44' onclick='alert('hello');' />"; The above code is my javascript. Problem is printing hello or any other string. If I just type 123 in place of hello, it does give alert. But am not able to use a string like hello there. Normally a string in an alert function is kept inside quotes ' ' but the entire content is inside double quotes and I have already used single quote at the beginning of onclick function. I tried using Escape character ("\") but it didnt help. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Single and Double Jump with single button.

  - by Asad

  I want to make Single Jump on Single Tap and Double Jump on Double Tap. My problem is that if I make double Tap on ground then it’s fine but if I make first Tap on ground and second Tap in Air then Player gain more height then usual As in image 1. I want to Make my jump like in Image 2, No matter from which point user gives second Tap, player Always get a specific height. I Used both Impulse and Linear velocity to make Jump but my problem did not solved.

  Read the article

• Does the traditional use of the controller in MVC lead to a violation of the Single Responsibility P

  - by Byron Sommardahl

  Wikipedia describes the Single Responsibility Principle this way: The Single Responsibility Principle states that every object should have a single responsibility, and that responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by the class. All its services should be narrowly aligned with that responsibility. The traditional use of the controller in MVC seems to lead a programmer towards a violation of this principle. Take a simple guest book controller and view. The controller might have two methods/actions: 1) Index() and 2) Submit(). The Index() displays the form. The Submit() processes it. Do these two methods represent two distinct responsibilities? If so, how does Single Responsibility come in to play?

  Read the article

• responsibility for storage

  - by Stefano Borini

  A colleague and I were brainstorming about where to put the responsibility of an object to store itself on the disk in our own file format. There are basically two choices: object.store(file) fileformatWriter.store(object) The first one gives the responsibility of serialization on the disk to the object itself. This is similar to the approach used by python pickle. The second groups the representation responsibility on a file format writer object. The data object is just a plain data container (eventually with additional methods not relevant for storage). We agreed on the second methodology, because it centralizes the writing logic from generic data. We also have cases of objects implementing complex logic that need to store info while the logic is in progress. For these cases, the fileformatwriter object can be passed and used as a delegate, calling storage operations on it. With the first pattern, the complex logic object would instead accept the raw file, and implement the writing logic itself. The first method, however, has the advantage that the object knows how to write and read itself from any file containing it, which may also be convenient. I would like to hear your opinion before starting a rather complex refactoring.

  Read the article

• Upcoming Webcast: Employee/Standard Supplier Inquiry/Update Responsibility Setup Diagnostic Test

  - by Oracle_EBS

  ADVISOR WEBCAST: Employee/Standard Supplier Inquiry/Update Responsibility Setup Diagnostic TestPRODUCT FAMILY: Oracle Payables March 28, 2012 at 10 am ET, 8 am MT, 6 am PT, 7:30 pm India This one-hours session is recommended for technical and functional users who create and setup separate responsibilities to achieve various supplier inquiry /update functionalities but encounter issues while accessing these functions and system does not behave as intended. In this session, we will discuss various reasons and the solutions to resolve the issues encountered.TOPICS WILL INCLUDE: Understanding the architecture of suppliers in R12 What is Employee/Standard Supplier Inquiry/Update Responsibility Setup Diagnostic Test and when to use that How to run the diagnostic How to interpret the diagnostic output and make necessary changes to setup. A brief description about the supplier import diagnostic script used to trouble shoot import issues. A short, live demonstration (only if applicable) and question and answer period will be included. Oracle Advisor Webcasts are dedicated to building your awareness around our products and services. This session does not replace offerings from Oracle Global Support Services. Current Schedule can be found on Note 740966.1 Post Presentation Recordings can be found on Note 740964.1

  Read the article

• Clarify the Single Responsibility Principle.

  - by dsimcha

  The Single Responsibility Principle states that a class should do one and only one thing. Some cases are pretty clear cut. Others, though, are difficult because what looks like "one thing" when viewed at a given level of abstraction may be multiple things when viewed at a lower level. I also fear that if the Single Responsibility Principle is honored at the lower levels, excessively decoupled, verbose ravioli code, where more lines are spent creating tiny classes for everything and plumbing information around than actually solving the problem at hand, can result. How would you describe what "one thing" means? What are some concrete signs that a class really does more than "one thing"?

  Read the article

• Single Responsibility Principle Implementation

  - by Mike S

  In my spare time, I've been designing a CMS in order to learn more about actual software design and architecture, etc. Going through the SOLID principles, I already notice that ideas like "MVC", "DRY", and "KISS", pretty much fall right into place. That said, I'm still having problems deciding if one of two implementations is the best choice when it comes to the Single Responsibility Principle. Implementation #1: class User getName getPassword getEmail // etc... class UserManager create read update delete class Session start stop class Login main class Logout main class Register main The idea behind this implementation is that all user-based actions are separated out into different classes (creating a possible case of the aptly-named Ravioli Code), but following the SRP to a "tee", almost literally. But then I thought that it was a bit much, and came up with this next implementation class UserView extends View getLogin //Returns the html for the login screen getShortLogin //Returns the html for an inline login bar getLogout //Returns the html for a logout button getRegister //Returns the html for a register page // etc... as needed class UserModel extends DataModel implements IDataModel // Implements no new methods yet, outside of the interface methods // Haven't figured out anything special to go here at the moment // All CRUD operations are handled by DataModel // through methods implemented by the interface class UserControl extends Control implements IControl login logout register startSession stopSession class User extends DataObject getName getPassword getEmail // etc... This is obviously still very organized, and still very "single responsibility". The User class is a data object that I can manipulate data on and then pass to the UserModel to save it to the database. All the user data rendering (what the user will see) is handled by UserView and it's methods, and all the user actions are in one space in UserControl (plus some automated stuff required by the CMS to keep a user logged in or to ensure that they stay out.) I personally can't think of anything wrong with this implementation either. In my personal feelings I feel that both are effectively correct, but I can't decide which one would be easier to maintain and extend as life goes on (despite leaning towards Implementation #1.) So what about you guys? What are your opinions on this? Which one is better? What basics (or otherwise, nuances) of that principle have I missed in either design?

  Read the article

• Single Responsibility Principle in Serialization

  The Single Responsibility Principle may be one of the most important design concepts in programming. This blog illustrates how Microsoft broke this pattern in MFC, and how they later redeemed themselves in .NET

  Read the article

• Adding a Role to a Responsibility for Use with the Oracle E-Business Suite SDK for Java JAAS Implementation

  - by Juan Camilo Ruiz

  This new post on the series of ADF integration with Oracle E-Business Suite, was written by Sara Woodhull, Principal Product Manager on the Oracle E-Business Suite Applications Technology team. Based on a previous post of the series, a reader asked what to do if you have an existing responsibility assigned to lots of users, instead of the UMX role that the Oracle E-Business Suite SDK for Java JAAS Implementation requires.  It would be tedious to assign a new role directly to hundreds or thousands of users, so naturally we’d like to avoid that if possible. Most people don’t know this, but it’s possible to assign a UMX role to a responsibility in Oracle User Management. Once you do that, users with your responsibility will all inherit your UMX role automatically. You can then proceed with using your UMX role with JAAS for ADF. Here is how to assign a UMX role to a responsibility in Oracle E-Business Suite: In the User Management responsibility, go to the Roles & Role Inheritance page. Search for the responsibility you want. In the search results table, click the “View In Hierarchy” icon for your responsibility. Note that the codes for responsibilities start with FND_RESP, while the codes for roles start with UMX. In the Role Inheritance Hierarchy, click on the Add Node icon (green plus + ) for your responsibility. Now you will see what appears to be the same page again but it is a little different (note the text at the top telling you the role you select will be inherited…).  This time, either search or expand nodes until you find your custom UMX role.  Use the Quick Select to choose that role. You will be sent back to the first screen, where you should see a confirmation message at the top. On the same page you can verify that the custom UMX role is underneath the responsibility.  You may need to expand one or more nodes to see the UMX role under the responsibility. You might see some other roles that have been inherited as well. Now that your users have the UMX role, you can test that the UMX role is being passed through to your ADF application through the Oracle E-Business Suite SDK for Java JAAS feature. Happy coding!

  Read the article

• Visual Studio Talk Show #118 is now online - Command-Query Responsibility Separation (French)

  http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com Erik Renaud: La sparation des responsabilits entre les commandes et les requtes Nous discutons avec Erik Renaud de la sparation des responsabilits entre les commandes et les requtes (Command-Query Responsibility Separation - CQRS). La plupart des applications lisent les donnes beaucoup plus frquemment qu'ils font des critures. Sur la base de cette dclaration, une bonne ide consiste sparer le code qui est responsable de lcriture des donnes du code qui est...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

  Read the article

• Single responsibility principle - am I overusing it?

  - by Tarun

  For reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle I have a test scenario where in one module of application is responsible for creating ledger entries. There are three basic tasks which could be carried out - View existing ledger entries in table format. Create new ledger entry using create button. Click on a ledger entry in the table (mentioned in first pointer) and view its details in next page. You could nullify a ledger entry in this page. (There are couple more operation/validations in each page but fore sake of brevity I will limit it to these) So I decided to create three different classes - LedgerLandingPage CreateNewLedgerEntryPage ViewLedgerEntryPage These classes offer the services which could be carried out in those pages and Selenium tests use these classes to bring application to a state where I could make certain assertion. When I was having it reviewed with on of my colleague then he was over whelmed and asked me to make one single class for all. Though I yet feel my design is much clean I am doubtful if I am overusing Single Responsibility principle

  Read the article

• Visual Studio Talk Show #118 is now online - Command-Query Responsibility Separation (French)

  - by guybarrette

  http://www.visualstudiotalkshow.com Erik Renaud: La séparation des responsabilités entre les commandes et les requêtes Nous discutons avec Erik Renaud de la séparation des responsabilités entre les commandes et les requêtes (Command-Query Responsibility Separation - CQRS). La plupart des applications lisent les données beaucoup plus fréquemment qu'ils font des écritures. Sur la base de cette déclaration, une bonne idée consiste à séparer le code qui est responsable de l’écriture des données du code qui est responsable des requêtes (lecture). Erik Renaud est un coach .NET et co-fondateur de nVentive, une société conseil qui aide les équipes de développement logiciel au moyen de « coaching » et de « guidance ». Ses mandats courants se concentrent dans les grandes institutions financières en créant de nouvelles équipes qui supportent directement leurs activités primaires. Erik cumule plus de 10 ans d’expérience en développement logiciel, en faisant du coaching pour des équipes pour des besoins en architecture, modélisation et analyse. Pour la seconde année, il a reçu de Microsoft la reconnaissance MVP. Il est un ScrumMaster certifié, ce qui l’aide à guider les équipes vers le succès, et offre souvent des formations pour les technologies orientées objet. Il peut être rejoint au [email protected], ou vu tout partout où le kendo est pratiqué. var addthis_pub="guybarrette";

  Read the article

• Single-Signon options for Exchange 2010

  - by freiheit

  We're working on a project to migrate employee email from Unix/open-source (courier IMAP, exim, squirrelmail, etc) to Exchange 2010, and trying to figure out options for single-signon for Outlook Web Access. So far all the options I've found are very ugly and "unsupportable", and may simply not work with Forefront. We already have JA-SIG CAS for token-based single-signon and Shibboleth for SAML. Users are directed to a simple in-house portal (a Perl CGI, really) that they use to sign in to most stuff. We have an HA OpenLDAP cluster that's already synchronized against another AD domain and will be synchronized with the AD domain Exchange will be using. CAS authenticates against LDAP. The portal authenticates against CAS. Shibboleth authenticates with CAS but pulls additional data from LDAP. We're moving in the direction of having web services authenticate against CAS or Shibboleth. (Students are already on SAML/Shibboleth authenticated Google Apps for Education) With Squirrelmail we have a horrible hack linked to from that portal page that authenticates against CAS, gets your original plaintext password (yes, I know, evil), and gives you an HTTP form pre-filled with all the necessary squirrelmail login details with javaScript onLoad stuff to immediately submit the form. Trying to find out exactly what is possible with Exchange/OWA seems to be difficult. "CAS" is both the acronym for our single-signon server and an Exchange component. From what I've been able to tell there's an addon for Exchange that does SAML, but only for federating things like free/busy calendar info, not authenticating users. Plus it costs additional money so there's no way to experiment with it to see if it can be coaxed into doing what we want. Our plans for the Exchange cluster involve Forefront Threat Management Gateway (the new ISA) in the DMZ front-ending the CAS servers. So, the real question: Has anybody managed to make Exchange authenticate with CAS (token-based single-signon) or SAML, or with something I can reasonably likely make authenticate with one of those (such as anything that will accept apache's authentication)? With Forefront? Failing that, anybody have some tips on convincing OWA Forms Based Authentication (FBA) into letting us somehow "pre-login" the user? (log in as them and pass back cookies to the user, or giving the user a pre-filled form that autosubmits like we do with squirrelmail). This is the least-favorite option for a number of reasons, but it would (just barely) satisfy our requirements. From what I hear from the guy implementing Forefront, we may have to set OWA to basic authentication and do forms in Forefront for authentication, so it's possible this isn't even possible. I did find CasOwa, but it only mentions Exchange 2007, looks kinda scary, and as near as I can tell is mostly the same OWA FBA hack I was considering slightly more integrated with the CAS server. It also didn't look like many people had had much success with it. And it may not work with Forefront. There's also "CASifying Outlook Web Access 2", but that one scares me, too, and involves setting up a complex proxy config, which seems more likely to break. And, again, doesn't look like it would work with Forefront. Am I missing something with Exchange SAML (OWA Federated whatchamacallit) where it is possible to configure to do user authentication and not just free/busy access authorization?

  Read the article

• Add/ End Date Responsibility For Oracle FND User

  - by PRajkumar

  API - fnd_user_pkg.addresp Example -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Add/ End Date Responsibility to Oracle FND User -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- DECLARE     lc_user_name                        VARCHAR2(100)    := 'PRAJ_TEST';     lc_resp_appl_short_name   VARCHAR2(100)    := 'FND';     lc_responsibility_key          VARCHAR2(100)    := 'APPLICATION_DEVELOPER';     lc_security_group_key        VARCHAR2(100)    := 'STANDARD';     ld_resp_start_date                DATE                        := TO_DATE('25-JUN-2012');     ld_resp_end_date                 DATE                        := NULL; BEGIN      fnd_user_pkg.addresp      (   username           => lc_user_name,         resp_app             => lc_resp_appl_short_name,         resp_key             => lc_responsibility_key,         security_group  => lc_security_group_key,         description         => NULL,         start_date           => ld_resp_start_date,         end_date            => ld_resp_end_date     );  COMMIT; EXCEPTION             WHEN OTHERS THEN                         ROLLBACK;                         DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(SQLERRM); END; / SHOW ERR;  

  Read the article

• Should these concerns be separated into separate objects?

  - by Lewis Bassett

  I have objects which implement the interface BroadcastInterface, which represents a message that is to be broadcast to all users of a particular group. It has a setter and getter method for the Subject and Body properties, and an addRecipientRole() method, which takes a given role and finds the contact token (e.g., an email address) for each user in the role and stores it. It then has a getContactTokens() method. BroadcastInterface objects are passed to an object that implements BroadcasterInterface. These objects are responsible for broadcasting a passed BroadcastInterface object. For example, an EmailBroadcaster implementation of the BroadcasterInterface will take EmailBroadcast objects and use the mailer services to email them out. Now, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used to broadcast, a different implementation of BroadcastInterface is used by client code. The Single Responsibility Principle seems to suggest that I should have a separate BroadcastFactory object, for creating BroadcastInterface objects, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used, as creating the BroadcastInterface object is a different responsibility to broadcasting them. But the class used for creating BroadcastInterface objects depends on what implementation of BroadcasterInterface is used to broadcast them. I think, because the knowledge of what method is used to send the broadcasts should only be configured once, the BroadcasterInterface object should be responsible for providing new BroadcastInterface objects. Does the responsibility of “creating and broadcasting objects that implement the BroadcastInterface interface” violate the Single Responsibility Principle? (Because the contact token for sending the broadcast out to the users will differ depending on the way it is broadcasted, I need different broadcast classes—though client code will not be able to tell the difference.)

  Read the article

• Diagram to show code responsibility

  - by Mike Samuel

  Does anyone know how to visually diagram the ways in which the flow of control in code passes between code produced by different groups and how that affects the amount of code that needs to be carefully written/reviewed/tested for system properties to hold? What I am trying to help people visualize are arguments of the form: For property P to hold, nd developers have to write application code, Ca, without certain kinds of errors, and nm maintainers have to make sure that the code continues to not have these kinds of errors over the project lifetime. We could reduce the error rate by educating nd developers and nm maintainers. For us to be confident that the property holds, ns specialists still need to test or check |Ca| lines of code and continue to test/check the changes by nm maintainers. Alternatively, we could be confident that P holds if all code paths that could violate P went through tool code, Ct, written by our specialists. In our case, test suites alone cannot give confidence that P holdsnd » nsnm ns|Ca| » |Ct| so writing and maintaining Ct is economical, frees up our developers to worry about other things, and reduces the ongoing education commitment by our specialists. or those conditions do not hold, so focusing on education and testing is preferable. Example 1 As a concrete example, suppose we want to ensure that our web-service only produces valid JSON output. Our web-service provides several query and mutation operators that can be composed in interesting ways. We could try to educate everyone who maintains those operations about the JSON syntax, the importance of conformance, and libraries available so that when they write to an output buffer, every possible sequence of appends results in syntactically valid JSON. Alternatively, we don't expose an output stream handle to application code, and instead expose a JSON sink so that every code path that writes a response is channeled through a JSON sink that is written and maintained by a specialist who knows JSON syntax and can use well-written libraries to produce only valid output. Example 2 We need to make sure that a service that receives a URL from an untrusted source and tries to fetch its content does not end up revealing sensitive files from the file-system, like file:///etc/passwd. If there is a single standard way that any developer familiar with the application language's libraries would use to fetch URLs, which has file-system access turned off by default, then simply educating developers about the standard mechanism, and testing that file probing fails for some inputs, will probably be sufficient.

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >