Search Results

Search found 25346 results on 1014 pages for 'framework design'.

Page 105/1014 | < Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >

• Should I share UI for objects that use common fields?

  - by wb

  I have a parent class that holds all of the fields that are common between all device types. From that, I have a few derived classes that each hold their unique fields. Say I have device type "Switch" and "Transformer". Both derived classes only have 2-3 of their own unique fields. When doing the UI design (windows forms) in this case. Should I create two separate forms for each device type or create a user control with all fields that are shared among all devices? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Argument exception after trying to use TryGetObjectByKey

  - by Rickjaah

  Hi, EDIT: Somethings wrong.... I have to use objectContext.Frontpages.ToArray() before I can use TryGetObjectByEntityKey(). Any ideas anyone? I'm trying to retrieve an object from my database using entity (framework 4) When I use the following code it gives an ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added. if (databaseContext.TryGetObjectByKey(entityKey, out result)) { return (result != null && result is TEntityObject) ? result as TEntityObject : null; } else { return null; } When I check the objectContext, I see the entities, but only if I enumerate the specific list of entities manually using VS2010, it works. What am I missing? Do I have to do something else before i can get the item from the database? I searched google, but could not find any results, the same for the msdn library EDIT: Still working on this.... It's a weird problem. I retrieve a value, but get an error that says a duplicate item exists. STACKTRACE: [ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added.] System.ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentException(ExceptionResource resource) +52 System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary2.Insert(TKey key, TValue value, Boolean add) +9549131 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.ObjectItemAttributeAssemblyLoader.LoadRelationshipTypes() +661 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.ObjectItemAttributeAssemblyLoader.LoadTypesFromAssembly() +17 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.ObjectItemAssemblyLoader.Load() +25 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.ObjectItemAttributeAssemblyLoader.Load() +4 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.AssemblyCache.LoadAssembly(Assembly assembly, Boolean loadReferencedAssemblies, ObjectItemLoadingSessionData loadingData) +160 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.AssemblyCache.LoadAssembly(Assembly assembly, Boolean loadReferencedAssemblies, KnownAssembliesSet knownAssemblies, EdmItemCollection edmItemCollection, Action1 logLoadMessage, Object& loaderCookie, Dictionary2& typesInLoading, List1& errors) +166 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.ObjectItemCollection.LoadAssemblyFromCache(ObjectItemCollection objectItemCollection, Assembly assembly, Boolean loadReferencedAssemblies, EdmItemCollection edmItemCollection, Action`1 logLoadMessage) +316 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.MetadataWorkspace.ImplicitLoadAssemblyForType(Type type, Assembly callingAssembly) +306 System.Data.Metadata.Edm.MetadataWorkspace.ImplicitLoadFromEntityType(EntityType type, Assembly callingAssembly) +109 System.Data.Objects.ObjectContext.TryGetObjectByKey(EntityKey key, Object& value) +288 EDIT: Lazy loading is set to true. EDIT: Somethings wrong.... I have to use objectContext.Frontpages.ToArray() before I can use TryGetObjectByEntityKey(). Any ideas anyone?

  Read the article

• C# Lack of Static Inheritance - What Should I Do?

  - by yellowblood

  Alright, so as you probably know, static inheritance is impossible in C#. I understand that, however I'm stuck with the development of my program. I will try to make it as simple as possible. Lets say our code needs to manage objects that are presenting aircrafts in some airport. The requirements are as follows: There are members and methods that are shared for all aircrafts There are many types of aircrafts, each type may have its own extra methods and members. There can be many instances for each aircraft type. Every aircraft type must have a friendly name for this type, and more details about this type. For example a class named F16 will have a static member FriendlyName with the value of "Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon". Other programmers should be able to add more aircrafts, although they must be enforced to create the same static details about the types of the aircrafts. In some GUI, there should be a way to let the user see the list of available types (with the details such as FriendlyName) and add or remove instances of the aircrafts, saved, lets say, to some XML file. So, basically, if I could enforce inherited classes to implement static members and methods, I would enforce the aircraft types to have static members such as FriendlyName. Sadly I cannot do that. So, what would be the best design for this scenario?

  Read the article

• How do you keep your business rules DRY?

  - by Mario

  I periodically ponder how to best design an application whose every business rule exists in just a single location. (While I know there is no proverbial “best way” and that designs are situational, people must have a leaning toward one practice or another.) I work for a shop where they prefer to house as much of the business rules as possible in the database. This requires developers in many cases to perform identical front-end validations to avoid sending data to the database that will result in an exception—not very DRY. It grates me anytime I find myself duplicating any kind of logic—even lowly validation logic. I am a single-point-of-truth purist to an anal degree. On the other end of the spectrum, I know of shops that create dumb databases (the Rails community leans in this direction) and handle all of the business logic in a separate tier (in Rails the models would house “most” of this). Note the word “most” which implies that some business logic does end up spilling into other places (in Rails it might spill over into the controllers). In way, a clean separation of concerns where all business logic exists in a single core location is a Utopian fantasy that’s hard to uphold (n-tiered architecture or not). Furthermore, is see the “Database as a fortress” and would agree that it should be built on constraints that cause it to reject bad data. As such, I hold principles that cause a degree of angst as I attempt to balance them. How do you balance the database-as-a-fortress view with the desire to have a single-point-of-truth?

  Read the article

• Best practice for structuring a new large ASP.NET MVC2 plus EF4 VS2010 solution?

  - by Nick

  Hi, we are building a new web application using Microsoft ASP.NET MVC2 and Entity Framework 4. Although I am sure there is not one right answer to my question, we are struggling to agree a VS2010 solution structure. The application will use SQL Server 2008 with a possible future Azure cloud version. We are using EF4 with T4 POCOs (model-first) and accessing a number of third-party web-services. We will also be connecting to a number of external messaging systems. UI is based on standard ASP.NET (MVC) with jQuery. In future we may deliver a Silverlight/WPF version - as well as mobile. So put simply, we start with a VS2010 blank solution - then what? I have suggested 4 folders Data (the EF edmx file etc), Domain (entities, repositories), Services (web-services access), Presentation (web ui etc). However under Presentation, creating the ASP.NET MVC2 project obviously creates it's own Models folder etc and it just doesn't seem to fit too well in this proposed structure. I'm also missing a business layer (or does this sit in the domain?). Again I am sure there is no one right way to do it, but I'd really appreciate your views on this. Thanks

  Read the article

• AntFarm anti-pattern -- strategies to avoid, antidotes to help heal from

  - by alchemical

  I'm working on a 10 page web site with a database back-end. There are 500+ objects in use, trying to implement the MVP pattern in ASP.Net. I'm tracing the code-execution from a single-page, my finger has been on F-11 in Visual Studio for about 40 minutes, there seems to be no end, possibly 1000+ method calls for one web page! If it was just 50 objects that would be one thing, however, code execution snakes through all these objects just like millions of ants frantically woring in their giant dirt mound house, riddled with object tunnels. Hence, a new anti-pattern is born : AntFarm. AntFarm is also known as "OO-Madnes", "OO-Fever", OO-ADD, or simply design-pattern junkie. This is not the first time I've seen this, nor my associates at other companies. It seems that this style is being actively propogated, or in any case is a misunderstanding of the numerous OO/DP gospels going around... I'd like to introduce an anti-pattern to the anti-pattern: GST or "Get Stuff Done" AKA "Get Sh** done" AKA GRD (GetRDone). This pattern focused on just what it says, getting stuff done, in a simple way. I may try to outline it more in a later post, or please share your ideas on this antidote pattern. Anyway, I'm in the midst of a great example of AntFarm anti-pattern as I write (as a bonus, there is no documentation or comments). Please share you thoughts on how this anti-pattern has become so prevelant, how we can avoid it, and how can one undo or deal with this pattern in a live system one must work with!

  Read the article

• Best pattern for storing (product) attributes in SQL Server

  - by EdH

  We are starting a new project where we need to store product and many product attributes in a database. The technology stack is MS SQL 2008 and Entity Framework 4.0 / LINQ for data access. The products (and Products Table) are pretty straightforward (a SKU, manufacturer, price, etc..). However there are also many attributes to store with each product (think industrial widgets). These may range from color to certification(s) to pipe size. Every product may have different attributes, and some may have multiples of the same attribute (Ex: Certifications). The current proposal is that we will basically have a name/value pair table with a FK back to the product ID in each row. An example of the attributes Table may look like this: ProdID AttributeName AttributeValue 123 Color Blue 123 FittingSize 1.25 123 Certification AS1111 123 Certification EE2212 123 Certification FM.3 456 Pipe 11 678 Color Red 999 Certification AE1111 ... Note: Attribute name would likely come from a lookup table or enum. So the main question here is: Is this the best pattern for doing something like this? How will the performance be? Queries will be based on a JOIN of the product and attributes table, and generally need many WHEREs to filter on specific attributes - the most common search will be to find a product based on a set of known/desired attributes. If anyone has any suggestions or a better pattern for this type of data, please let me know. Thanks! -Ed

  Read the article

• Pros and cons of making database IDs consistent and "readable"

  - by gmale

  Question Is it a good rule of thumb for database IDs to be "meaningless?" Conversely, are there significant benefits from having IDs structured in a way where they can be recognized at a glance? What are the pros and cons? Background I just had a debate with my coworkers about the consistency of the IDs in our database. We have a data-driven application that leverages spring so that we rarely ever have to change code. That means, if there's a problem, a data change is usually the solution. My argument was that by making IDs consistent and readable, we save ourselves significant time and headaches, long term. Once the IDs are set, they don't have to change often and if done right, future changes won't be difficult. My coworkers position was that IDs should never matter. Encoding information into the ID violates DB design policies and keeping them orderly requires extra work that, "we don't have time for." I can't find anything online to support either position. So I'm turning to all the gurus here at SA! Example Imagine this simplified list of database records representing food in a grocery store, the first set represents data that has meaning encoded in the IDs, while the second does not: ID's with meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 101 Apple 102 Banana 103 Orange 201 Lettuce 202 Onion 203 Carrot Location 41 Aisle four top shelf 42 Aisle four bottom shelf 51 Aisle five top shelf 52 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 10141 Apple on aisle four top shelf 10241 Banana on aisle four top shelf //just by reading the ids, it's easy to recongnize that these are both Fruit on Aisle 4 ID's without meaning: Type 1 Fruit 2 Veggie Product 1 Apple 2 Banana 3 Orange 4 Lettuce 5 Onion 6 Carrot Location 1 Aisle four top shelf 2 Aisle four bottom shelf 3 Aisle five top shelf 4 Aisle five bottom shelf ProductLocation 1 Apple on aisle four top shelf 2 Banana on aisle four top shelf //given the IDs, it's harder to see that these are both fruit on aisle 4 Summary What are the pros and cons of keeping IDs readable and consistent? Which approach do you generally prefer and why? Is there an accepted industry best-practice?

  Read the article

• Extending EF4 SQL Generation

  - by Basiclife

  Hi, We're using EF4 in a fairly large system and occasionally run into problems due to EF4 being unable to convert certain expressions into SQL. At present, we either need to do some fancy footwork (DB/Code) or just accept the performance hit and allow the query to be executed in-memory. Needless to say neither of these is ideal and the hacks we've sometimes had to use reduce readability / maintainability. What we would ideally like is a way to extend the SQL generation capabilities of the EF4 SQL provider. Obviously there are some things like .Net method calls which will always have to be client-side but some functionality like date comparisons (eg Group by weeks in Linq to Entities ) should be do-able. I've Googled but perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology as all I get is information about the new features of EF4 SQL Generation. For such a flexible and extensible framework, I'd be surprised if this isn't possible. In my head, I'm imagining inheriting from the [SQL 2008] provider and extending it to handle additional expressions / similar in the expression tree it's given to convert to SQL. Any help/pointers appreciated. We're using VS2010 Ultimate, .Net 4 (non-client profile) and EF4. The app is in ASP.Net and is running in a 64-Bit environment in case it makes a difference.

  Read the article

• Mapping composite foreign keys in a many-many relationship, with overlapping components.

  - by Kirk Broadhurst

  I have a Page table and a View table. There is a many-many relationship between these two via a PageView table. Unfortunately all of these tables need to have composite keys (for business reasons). Page has a primary key of (PageCode, Version), View has a primary key of (ViewCode, Version). PageView obviously enough has PageCode, ViewCode, and Version. The FK to Page is (PageCode, Version) and the FK to View is (ViewCode, Version) Makes sense and works, but when I try to map this in Entity framework I get Error 3021: Problem in mapping fragments...: Each of the following columns in table PageView is mapped to multiple conceptual side properties: PageView.Version is mapped to (PageView_Association.View.Version, PageView_Association.Page.Version) So clearly enough, EF is having a complain about the Version column being a common component of the two foreign keys. Obviously I could create a PageVersion and ViewVersion column in the join table, but that kind of defeats the point of the constraint, i.e. the Page and View must have the same Version value. Has anyone encountered this, and is there anything I can do get around it? Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is the best database structure for this scenario?

  - by Ricketts

  I have a database that is holding real estate MLS (Multiple Listing Service) data. Currently, I have a single table that holds all the listing attributes (price, address, sqft, etc.). There are several different property types (residential, commercial, rental, income, land, etc.) and each property type share a majority of the attributes, but there are a few that are unique to that property type. My question is the shared attributes are in excess of 250 fields and this seems like too many fields to have in a single table. My thought is I could break them out into an EAV (Entity-Attribute-Value) format, but I've read many bad things about that and it would make running queries a real pain as any of the 250 fields could be searched on. If I were to go that route, I'd literally have to pull all the data out of the EAV table, grouped by listing id, merge it on the application side, then run my query against the in memory object collection. This also does not seem very efficient. I am looking for some ideas or recommendations on which way to proceed. Perhaps the 250+ field table is the only way to proceed. Just as a note, I'm using SQL Server 2012, .NET 4.5 w/ Entity Framework 5, C# and data is passed to asp.net web application via WCF service. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Organizing Eager Queries in an ObjectContext

  - by Nix

  I am messing around with Entity Framework 3.5 SP1 and I am trying to find a cleaner way to do the below. I have an EF model and I am adding some Eager Loaded entities and i want them all to reside in the "Eager" property in the context. We originally were just changing the entity set name, but it seems a lot cleaner to just use a property, and keep the entity set name in tact. Example: Context - EntityType - AnotherType - Eager (all of these would have .Includes to pull in all assoc. tables) - EntityType - AnotherType Currently I am using composition but I feel like there is an easier way to do what I want. namespace Entities{ public partial class TestObjectContext { EagerExtensions Eager { get;set;} public TestObjectContext(){ Eager = new EagerExtensions (this); } } public partial class EagerExtensions { TestObjectContext context; public EagerExtensions(TestObjectContext _context){ context = _context; } public IQueryable<TestEntity> TestEntity { get { return context.TestEntity .Include("TestEntityType") .Include("Test.Attached.AttachedType") .AsQueryable(); } } } } public class Tester{ public void ShowHowIWantIt(){ TestObjectContext context= new TestObjectContext(); var query = from a in context.Eager.TestEntity select a; } }

  Read the article

• Pattern for UI configuration

  - by TERACytE

  I have a Win32 C++ program that validates user input and updates the UI with status information and options. Currently it is written like this: void ShowError() { SetIcon(kError); SetMessageString("There was an error"); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } void ShowSuccess() { SetIcon(kError); std::String statusText (GetStatusText()); SetMessageString(statusText); HideButton(kButton1); HideButton(kButton2); ShowButton(kButton3); } // plus several more methods to update the UI using similar mechanisms I do not likes this because it duplicates code and causes me to update several methods if something changes in the UI. I am wondering if there is a design pattern or best practice to remove the duplication and make the functionality easier to understand and update. I could consolidate the code inside a config function and pass in flags to enable/disable UI items, but I am not convinced this is the best approach. Any suggestions and ideas?

  Read the article

• Using an ORM with a database that has no defined relationships?

  - by Ahmad

  Consider a database(MSSQL 2005) that consists of 100+ tables which have primary keys defined to a certain degree. There are 'relationships' between tables, however these are not enforced with foreign key constraints. Consider the following simplified example of typical types of tables I am dealing with. The are clear relations between the User and City and Province tables. However, they key issues is the inconsistent data types in the tables and naming conventions. User: UserRowId [int] PK Name [varchar(50)] CityId [smallint] ProvinceRowId [bigint] City: CityRowId [bigint] PK CityDescription [varchar(100)] Province: ProvinceId [int] PK ProvinceDesc [varchar(50)] I am considering a rewrite of the application (in ASP.net MVC) that uses this data source as is similar in design to MVC storefront. However I am going through a proof of concept phase and this is one of the stumbling blocks I have come across. What are my options in terms of ORM choice that can be easily used and why? Should I even be considering an ORM? (The reason I ask this is that most explanations and tutorials all work with relatively cleanly designed existing databases, or newly created ones when compared to mine. I am thus having a very hard time trying to find a way forward with this problem) There is a huge amount of existing SQL queries, would a datamappper(eg IBatis.net) be more suitable since we could easily modify them to work and reuse the investment already made? I have found this question on SO which indicates to me that an ORM can be used - however I get the impression that this a question of mapping? Note: at the moment, the object model is not clearly defined as it was non-existent. The existing system pretty much did almost everything in SQL or consisted of overly complicated, and numerous queries to complete fucntionality. I am pretty much a noob and have zero experience around ORMs and MVC - so this an awesome learning curve I am on.

  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

• DDD: Enum like entities

  - by Chris

  Hi all, I have the following DB model: **Person table** ID | Name | StateId ------------------------------ 1 Joe 1 2 Peter 1 3 John 2 **State table** ID | Desc ------------------------------ 1 Working 2 Vacation and domain model would be (simplified): public class Person { public int Id { get; } public string Name { get; set; } public State State { get; set; } } public class State { private int id; public string Name { get; set; } } The state might be used in the domain logic e.g.: if(person.State == State.Working) // some logic So from my understanding, the State acts like a value object which is used for domain logic checks. But it also needs to be present in the DB model to represent a clean ERM. So state might be extended to: public class State { private int id; public string Name { get; set; } public static State New {get {return new State([hardCodedIdHere?], [hardCodeNameHere?]);}} } But using this approach the name of the state would be hardcoded into the domain. Do you know what I mean? Is there a standard approach for such a thing? From my point of view what I am trying to do is using an object (which is persisted from the ERM design perspective) as a sort of value object within my domain. What do you think? Question update: Probably my question wasn't clear enough. What I need to know is, how I would use an entity (like the State example) that is stored in a database within my domain logic. To avoid things like: if(person.State.Id == State.Working.Id) // some logic or if(person.State.Id == WORKING_ID) // some logic

  Read the article

• Do entity collections and object sets implement IQueryable<T>?

  - by Chevex

  I am using Entity Framework for the first time and noticed that the entities object returns entity collections. DBEntities db = new DBEntities(); db.Users; //Users is an ObjectSet<User> User user = db.Users.Where(x => x.Username == "test").First(); //Is this getting executed in the SQL or in memory? user.Posts; //Posts is an EntityCollection<Post> Post post = user.Posts.Where(x => x.PostID == "123").First(); //Is this getting executed in the SQL or in memory? Do both ObjectSet and EntityCollection implement IQueryable? I am hoping they do so that I know the queries are getting executed at the data source and not in memory. EDIT: So apparently EntityCollection does not while ObjectSet does. Does that mean I would be better off using this code? DBEntities db = new DBEntities(); User user = db.Users.Where(x => x.Username == "test").First(); //Is this getting executed in the SQL or in memory? Post post = db.Posts.Where(x => (x.PostID == "123")&&(x.Username == user.Username)).First(); // Querying the object set instead of the entity collection. Also, what is the difference between ObjectSet and EntityCollection? Shouldn't they be the same? Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• WCF data services (OData), query with inheritance limitation?

  - by Mathieu Hétu

  Project: WCF Data service using internally EF4 CTP5 Code-First approach. I configured entities with inheritance (TPH). See previous question on this topic: Previous question about multiple entities- same table The mapping works well, and unit test over EF4 confirms that queries runs smoothly. My entities looks like this: ContactBase (abstract) Customer (inherits from ContactBase), this entity has also several Navigation properties toward other entities Resource (inherits from ContactBase) I have configured a discriminator, so both Customer and Resource map to the same table. Again, everythings works fine on the Ef4 point of view (unit tests all greens!) However, when exposing this DBContext over WCF Data services, I get: - CustomerBases sets exposed (Customers and Resources sets seems hidden, is it by design?) - When I query over Odata on Customers, I get this error: Navigation Properties are not supported on derived entity types. Entity Set 'ContactBases' has a instance of type 'CodeFirstNamespace.Customer', which is an derived entity type and has navigation properties. Please remove all the navigation properties from type 'CodeFirstNamespace.Customer'. Stacktrace: at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteObjectProperties(IExpandedResult expanded, Object customObject, ResourceType resourceType, Uri absoluteUri, String relativeUri, SyndicationItem item, DictionaryContent content, EpmSourcePathSegment currentSourceRoot) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteEntryElement(IExpandedResult expanded, Object element, ResourceType expectedType, Uri absoluteUri, String relativeUri, SyndicationItem target) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.<DeferredFeedItems>d__b.MoveNext() at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteItems(XmlWriter writer, IEnumerable`1 items, Uri feedBaseUri) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteFeedTo(XmlWriter writer, SyndicationFeed feed, Boolean isSourceFeed) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteFeed(XmlWriter writer) at System.ServiceModel.Syndication.Atom10FeedFormatter.WriteTo(XmlWriter writer) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.SyndicationSerializer.WriteTopLevelElements(IExpandedResult expanded, IEnumerator elements, Boolean hasMoved) at System.Data.Services.Serializers.Serializer.WriteRequest(IEnumerator queryResults, Boolean hasMoved) at System.Data.Services.ResponseBodyWriter.Write(Stream stream) Seems like a limitation of WCF Data services... is it? Not much documentation can be found on the web about WCF Data services (OData) and inheritance specifications. How can I overpass this exception? I need these navigation properties on derived entities, and inheritance seems the only way to provide mapping of 2 entites on the same table with Ef4 CTP5... Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• How to "wrap" implementation in C#

  - by igor

  Hello, I have these classes in C# (.NET Framework 3.5) described below: public class Base { public int State {get; set;} public virtual int Method1(){} public virtual string Method2(){} ... public virtual void Method10(){} } public class B: Base { // some implementation } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; public class Proxy(B b) { _b = b; } public override int Method1() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method1(); else return base.Method1(); } public override string Method2() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method2(); else return base.Method2(); } public override void Method10() { if (State == Running) _b.Method10(); else base.Method10(); } } I want to get something this: public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) // may be some other rule return _b; else return base; // compile error } and my Proxy's implementation will be: public class Proxy: Base { ... public override int Method1() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method1(); } public override string Method2() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method2(); } ... } Of course, I can do this (aggregation of base implementation): public RepeaterOfBase: Base // no any overrides, just inheritance { } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; private RepeaterOfBase _Base; public class Proxy(B b, RepeaterOfBase aBase) { _b = b; _base = aBase; } } ... public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) return _b; else return _Base; } ... But instance of Base class is very huge and I have to avoid to have other additional copy in memory. So I have to simplify my code have to "wrap" implementation have to avoid a code duplication have to avoid aggregation of any additional instance of Base class (duplication) Is it possible to reach these goals?

  Read the article

• What's the best way to communicate the purpose of a string parameter in a public API?

  - by Dave

  According to the guidance published in New Recommendations for Using Strings in Microsoft .NET 2.0, the data in a string may exhibit one of the following types of behavior: A non-linguistic identifier, where bytes match exactly. A non-linguistic identifier, where case is irrelevant, especially a piece of data stored in most Microsoft Windows system services. Culturally-agnostic data, which still is linguistically relevant. Data that requires local linguistic customs. Given that, I'd like to know the best way to communicate which behavior is expected of a string parameter in a public API. I wasn't able to find an answer in the Framework Design Guidelines. Consider the following methods: f(string this_is_a_linguistic_string) g(string this_is_a_symbolic_identifier_so_use_ordinal_compares) Is variable naming and XML documentation the best I can do? Could I use attributes in some way to mark the requirements of the string? Now consider the following case: h(Dictionary<string, object> dictionary) Note that the dictionary instance is created by the caller. How do I communicate that the callee expects the IEqualityComparer<string> object held by the dictionary to perform, for example, a case-insensitive ordinal comparison?

  Read the article

• LINQ to SQL - Lightweight O/RM?

  - by CoffeeAddict

  I've heard from some that LINQ to SQL is good for lightweight apps. But then I see LINQ to SQL being used for Stackoverflow, and a bunch of other .coms I know (from interviewing with them). Ok, so is this true? for an e-commerce site that's bringing in millions and you're typically only doing basic CRUDs most the time with the exception of an occasional stored proc for something more complex, is LINQ to SQL complete enough and performance-wise good enough or able to be tweaked enough to run happily on an e-commerce site? I've heard that you just need to tweak performance on the DB side when using LINQ to SQL for a better approach. So there are really 2 questions here: 1) Meaning/scope/definition of a "Lightweight" O/RM solution: What the heck does "lightweight" mean when people say LINQ to SQL is a "lightweight O/RM" and is that true??? If this is so lightweight then why do I see a bunch of huge .coms using it? Is it good enough to run major .coms (obviously it looks like it is) and what determines what the context of "lightweight" is...it's such a generic statement. 2) Performance: I'm working on my own .com and researching different O/RMs. I'm not really looking at the Entity Framework (yet), just want to figure out the LINQ to SQL basics here and determine if it will be efficient enough for me. The problem I think is you can't tweak or control the SQL it generates...

  Read the article

• Is it possible to auto update only selected properties on an existent entity object without touching the others

  - by LaserBeak

  Say I have a bunch of boolean properties on my entity class public bool isActive etc. Values which will be manipulated by setting check boxes in a web application. I will ONLY be posting back the one changed name/value pair and the primary key at a time, say { isActive : true , NewsPageID: 34 } and the default model binder will create a NewsPage object with only those two properties set. Now if I run the below code it will not only update the values for the properties that have been set on the NewsPage object created by the model binder but of course also attempt to null all the other non set values for the existent entity object because they are not set on NewsPage object created by the model binder. Is it possible to somehow tell entity framework not to look at the properties that are set to null and attempt to persist those changes back to the retrieved entity object and hence database ? Perhaps there's some code I can write that will only utilize the non-null values and their property names on the NewsPage object created by model binder and only attempt to update those particular properties ? [HttpPost] public PartialViewResult SaveNews(NewsPage Np) { Np.ModifyDate = DateTime.Now; _db.NewsPages.Attach(Np); _db.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState(Np, System.Data.EntityState.Modified); _db.SaveChanges(); _db.Dispose(); return PartialView("MonthNewsData"); } I can of course do something like below, but I have a feeling it's not the optimal solution. Especially considering that I have like 6 boolean properties that I need to set. [HttpPost] public PartialViewResult SaveNews(int NewsPageID, bool isActive, bool isOnFrontPage) { if (isActive != null) { //Get entity and update this property } if (isOnFontPage != null) { //Get entity and update this property } }

  Read the article

• Question About Example In Robert C Martin's _Clean Code_

  - by Jonah

  This is a question about the concept of a function doing only one thing. It won't make sense without some relevant passages for context, so I'll quote them here. They appear on pgs 37-38: To say this differently, we want to be able to read the program as though it were a set of TO paragraphs, each of which is describing the current level of abstraction and referencing subsequent TO paragraphs at the next level down. To include the setups and teardowns, we include setups, then we include the test page content, and then we include the teardowns. To include the setups, we include the suite setup if this is a suite, then we include the regular setup. It turns out to be very dif?cult for programmers to learn to follow this rule and write functions that stay at a single level of abstraction. But learning this trick is also very important. It is the key to keeping functions short and making sure they do “one thing.” Making the code read like a top-down set of TO paragraphs is an effective technique for keeping the abstraction level consistent. He then gives the following example of poor code: public Money calculatePay(Employee e) throws InvalidEmployeeType { switch (e.type) { case COMMISSIONED: return calculateCommissionedPay(e); case HOURLY: return calculateHourlyPay(e); case SALARIED: return calculateSalariedPay(e); default: throw new InvalidEmployeeType(e.type); } } and explains the problems with it as follows: There are several problems with this function. First, it’s large, and when new employee types are added, it will grow. Second, it very clearly does more than one thing. Third, it violates the Single Responsibility Principle7 (SRP) because there is more than one reason for it to change. Fourth, it violates the Open Closed Principle8 (OCP) because it must change whenever new types are added. Now my questions. To begin, it's clear to me how it violates the OCP, and it's clear to me that this alone makes it poor design. However, I am trying to understand each principle, and it's not clear to me how SRP applies. Specifically, the only reason I can imagine for this method to change is the addition of new employee types. There is only one "axis of change." If details of the calculation needed to change, this would only affect the submethods like "calculateHourlyPay()" Also, while in one sense it is obviously doing 3 things, those three things are all at the same level of abstraction, and can all be put into a TO paragraph no different from the example one: TO calculate pay for an employee, we calculate commissioned pay if the employee is commissioned, hourly pay if he is hourly, etc. So aside from its violation of the OCP, this code seems to conform to Martin's other requirements of clean code, even though he's arguing it does not. Can someone please explain what I am missing? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Patterns for dynamic CMS components (event driven?)

  - by CitrusTree

  Sorry my title is not great, this is my first real punt at moving 100% to OO as I've been procedural for more years than I can remember. I'm finding it hard to understand if what I'm trying to do is possible. Depending on people's thoughts on the 2 following points, I'll go down that route. The CMS I'm putting together is quote small, however focuses very much on different types of content. I could easily use Drupal which I'm very comfortable with, but I want to give myself a really good reasons to move myself into design patterns / OO-PHP 1) I have created a base 'content' class which I wish to be able to extend to handle different types of content. The base class, for example, handles HTML content, and extensions might handle XML or PDF output instead. On the other hand, at some point I may wish to extend the base class for a given project completely. I.e. if class 'content-v2' extended class 'content' for that site, any calls to that class should actually call 'content-v2' instead. Is that possible? If the code instantiates an object of type 'content' - I actually want it to instantiate one of type 'content-v2'... I can see how to do it using inheritance, but that appears to involve referring to the class explicitly, I can't see how to link the class I want it to use instead dynamically. 2) Secondly, the way I'm building this at the moment is horrible, I'm not happy with it. It feels very linear indeed - i.e. get session details get content build navigation theme page publish. To do this all the objects are called 1-by-1 which is all very static. I'd like it to be more dynamic so that I can add to it at a later date (very closely related to first question). Is there a way that instead of my orchestrator class calling all the other classes 1-by-1, then building the whole thing up at the end, that instead each of the other classes can 'listen' for specific events, then at the applicable point jump in and do their but? That way the orchestrator class would not need to know what other classes were required, and call them 1-by-1. Sorry if I've got this all twisted in my head. I'm trying to build this so it's really flexible.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112  | Next Page >