Search Results

Search found 9 results on 1 pages for 'thesilverbullet'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• What is constructor injection?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I have been looking at the terms constructor injection and dependency injection while going through articles on (Service locator) design patterns. When I googled about constructor injection, I got unclear results, which prompted me to check in here. What is constructor injection? Is this a specific type of dependency injection? A canonical example would be a great help! Edit Revisiting this questions after a gap of a week, I can see how lost I was... Just in case anyone else pops in here, I will update the question body with a little learning of mine. Please do feel free to comment/correct. Constructor injection and property injection are two types of Dependency Injection.

  Read the article

• Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet. While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• C#4: Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet at this location: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Beforefieldinit.aspx While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• Unit test: How best to provide an XML input?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I need to write a unit test which validates the serialization of two attributes of an XML(size ~ 30 KB) file. What is the best way to provide an input for this test? Here are the options I have considered: Add the file to the project and use a file reader Pass the contents of the XML as a string Create the XML through a program and pass it Which is my best option and why? If there is another way which you think is better, I would love to hear it.

  Read the article

• Philosophy behind the memento pattern

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I have been reading up on memento pattern from various sources of the internet. Differing information from different sources has left me in confusion regarding why this pattern is actually needed. The dofactory implementation says that the primary intention of this pattern is to restore the state of the system. Wiki says that the primary intention is to be able to restore the changes on the system. This gives a different impact - saying that it is possible for a system to have memento implementation with no need to restore. And that ability of restore is a feature of this. OODesign says that It is sometimes necessary to capture the internal state of an object at some point and have the ability to restore the object to that state later in time. Such a case is useful in case of error or failure. So, my question is why exactly do we use this one? Is it to save previous states - or to promote encapsulation between the Caretaker and the Memento? Why is this type of encapsulation so important? Edit: For those visiting, check out this Implementation!

  Read the article

• Pair programming and unit testing

  - by TheSilverBullet

  My team follows the Scrum development cycle. We have received feedback that our unit testing coverage is not very good. A team member is suggesting the addition of an external testing team to assist the core team, but I feel this will backfire in a bad way. I am thinking of suggesting pair programming approach. I have a feeling that this should help the code be more "test-worthy" and soon the team can move to test driven development! What are the potential problems that might arise out of pair programming??

  Read the article

• A sample Memento pattern: Is it correct?

  - by TheSilverBullet

  Following this query on memento pattern, I have tried to put my understanding to test. Memento pattern stands for three things: Saving state of the "memento" object for its successful retrieval Saving carefully each valid "state" of the memento Encapsulating the saved states from the change inducer so that each state remains unaltered Have I achieved these three with my design? Problem This is a zero player game where the program is initialized with a particular set up of chess pawns - the knight and queen. Then program then needs to keep adding set of pawns or knights and queens so that each pawn is "safe" for the next one move of every other pawn. The condition is that either both pawns should be placed, or none of them should be placed. The chessboard with the most number of non conflicting knights and queens should be returned. Implementation I have 4 classes for this: protected ChessBoard (the Memento) private int [][] ChessBoard; public void ChessBoard(); protected void SetChessBoard(); protected void GetChessBoard(int); public Pawn This is not related to memento. It holds info about the pawns public enum PawnType: int { Empty = 0, Queen = 1, Knight = 2, } //This returns a value that shown if the pawn can be placed safely public bool IsSafeToAddPawn(PawnType); public CareTaker This corresponds to caretaker of memento This is a double dimentional integer array that keeps a track of all states. The reason for having 2D array is to keep track of how many states are stored and which state is currently active. An example: 0 -2 1 -1 2 0 - This is current state. With second index 0/ 3 1 - This state has been saved, but has been undone private int [][]State; private ChessBoard [] MChessBoard; //This gets the chessboard at the position requested and assigns it to originator public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This overwrites the chessboard at given position public void SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); private int [][]State; public PlayGame (This is the originator) private bool status; private ChessBoard oChessBoard; //This sets the state of chessboard at position specified public SetChessBoard(ChessBoard, int); //This gets the state of chessboard at position specified public ChessBoard GetChessBoard(int); //This function tries to place both the pawns and returns the status of this attempt public bool PlacePawns(Pawn);

  Read the article

• Relationship between SOA and OOA

  - by TheSilverBullet

  Thomas Erl defines SOA as follows in his site: Service-oriented computing represents a new generation distributed computing platform. As such, it encompasses many things, including its own design paradigm and design principles, design pattern catalogs, pattern languages, a distinct architectural model, and related concepts, technologies, and frameworks. This definitely sounds like a whole new category which is parallel to object orientation. Almost one in which you would expect an entirely new language to exist for. Like procedural C and object oriented C#. Here is my understanding: In real life, we don't have entirely new language for SOA. And most application which have SOA architecture have an object oriented design underneath it. SOA is a "strategy" to make the entire application/service distributed and reliable. SOA needs OOPS working underneath it. Is this correct? Where does SOA (if at all it does) fit in with object oriented programming practices? Edit: I have learnt through answers that OOA and SOA work with each other and cannot be compared (in a "which is better" way). I have changed the title to "Relationship between SOA and OOA" rather than "comparison".

  Read the article

• IoC containers and service locator pattern

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I am trying to get an understanding of Inversion of Control and the dos and donts of this. Of all the articles I read, there is one by Mark Seemann (which is widely linked to in SO) which strongly asks folks not to use the service locator pattern. Then somewhere along the way, I came across this article by Ken where he helps us build our own IoC. I noticed that is is nothing but an implementation of service locator pattern. Questions: Is my observation correct that this implementation is the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is yes, then Do all IoC containers (like Autofac) use the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is no, then why is this differen? Is there any other pattern (other than DI) for inversion of control?

  Read the article

1