Search Results

Search found 11404 results on 457 pages for 'ui patterns'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 112/457 | < Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >

  • How to properly implement the Strategy pattern in a web MVC framework?

    - by jboxer
    In my Django app, I have a model (lets call it Foo) with a field called "type". I'd like to use Foo.type to indicate what type the specific instance of Foo is (possible choices are "Number", "Date", "Single Line of Text", "Multiple Lines of Text", and a few others). There are two things I'd like the "type" field to end up affecting; the way a value is converted from its normal type to text (for example, in "Date", it may be str(the_date.isoformat())), and the way a value is converted from text to the specified type (in "Date", it may be datetime.date.fromtimestamp(the_text)). To me, this seems like the Strategy pattern (I may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am). My question is, what's the proper way to code this in a web MVC framework? In a client-side app, I'd create a Type class with abstract methods "serialize()" and "unserialize()", override those methods in subclasses of Type (such as NumberType and DateType), and dynamically set the "type" field of a newly-instantiated Foo to the appropriate Type subclass at runtime. In a web framework, it's not quite as straightforward for me. Right now, the way that makes the most sense is to define Foo.type as a Small Integer field and define a limited set of choices (0 = "Number", 1 = "Date", 2 = "Single Line of Text", etc.) in the code. Then, when a Foo object is instantiated, use a Factory method to look at the value of the instance's "type" field and plug in the correct Type subclass (as described in the paragraph above). Foo would also have serialize() and unserialize() methods, which would delegate directly to the plugged-in Type subclass. How does this design sound? I've never run into this issue before, so I'd really like to know if other people have, and how they've solved it.

    Read the article

  • Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

    Read the article

  • Configuration and Model-View

    - by HH
    I am using the Model-View pattern on a small application I'm writing. Here's the scenario: The model maintains a list of directories from where it can extract the data that it needs. The View has a Configuration or a Setting dialog where the user can modify this list of directories (the dialog has a JList displaying the list in addition to add and remove buttons). I need some advice from the community: The View needs to communicate these changes to the model. I thought first of adding to the model these methods: addDirectory() and removeDirectory(). But I am trying to limit the number of methods (or channels) that the View can use to communicate with and manipulate the model. Is there any good practice for this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • anti-if campaign

    - by Andrew Siemer
    I recently ran against a very interesting site that expresses a very interesting idea - the anti-if campaign. You can see this here at www.antiifcampaign.com. I have to agree that complex nested IF statements are an absolute pain in the rear. I am currently on a project that up until very recently had some crazy nested IFs that scrolled to the right for quite a ways. We cured our issues in two ways - we used Windows Workflow Foundation to address routing (or workflow) concerns. And we are in the process of implementing all of our business rules utilizing ILOG Rules for .NET (recently purchased by IBM!!). This for the most part has cured our nested IF pains...but I find myself wondering how many people cure their pains in the manner that the good folks at the AntiIfCampaign suggest (see an example here) by creating numerous amounts of abstract classes to represent a given scenario that was originally covered by the nested IF. I wonder if another way to address the removal of this complexity might also be in using an IoC container such as StructureMap to move in and out of different bits of functionality. Either way... Question: Given a scenario where I have a nested complex IF or SWITCH statement that is used to evaluate a given type of thing (say evaluating an Enum) to determine how I want to handle the processing of that thing by enum type - what are some ways to do the same form of processing without using the IF or SWITCH hierarchical structure? public enum WidgetTypes { Type1, Type2, Type3, Type4 } ... WidgetTypes _myType = WidgetTypes.Type1; ... switch(_myType) { case WidgetTypes.Type1: //do something break; case WidgetTypes.Type2: //do something break; //etc... }

    Read the article

  • Does C# allow method overloading, PHP style (__call)?

    - by mr.b
    In PHP, there is a special method named __call($calledMethodName, $arguments), which allows class to catch calls to non-existing methods, and do something about it. Since most of classic languages are strongly typed, compiler won't allow calling a method that does not exist, I'm clear with that part. What I want to accomplish (and I figured this is how I would do it in PHP, but C# is something else) is to proxy calls to a class methods and log each of these calls. Right now, I have code similar to this: class ProxyClass { static logger; public AnotherClass inner { get; private set; } public ProxyClass() { inner = new AnotherClass(); } } class AnotherClass { public void A() {} public void B() {} public void C() {} // ... } // meanwhile, in happyCodeLandia... ProxyClass pc = new ProxyClass(); pc.inner.A(); pc.inner.B(); // ... So, how can I proxy calls to an object instance in extensible way? Extensible, meaning that I don't have to modify ProxyClass whenever AnotherClass changes. In my case, AnotherClass can have any number of methods, so it wouldn't be appropriate to overload or wrap all methods to add logging. I am aware that this might not be the best approach for this kind of problem, so if anyone has idea what approach to use, shoot. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • What does a WinForm application need to be designed for usability, and be robust, clean, and profess

    - by msorens
    One of the principal problems impeding productivity in software implementation is the classic conundrum of “reinventing the wheel”. Of late I am a .NET developer and even the wonderful wizardry of .NET and Visual Studio covers only a portion of this challenging issue. Below I present my initial thoughts both on what is available and what should be available from .NET on a WinForm, focusing on good usability. That is, aspects of an application exposed to the user and making the user experience easier and/or better. (I do include a couple items not visible to the user because I feel strongly about them, such as diagnostics.) I invite you to contribute to these lists. LIST A: Components provided by .NET These are substantially complete components provided by .NET, i.e. those requiring at most trivial coding to use. “About” dialog -- add it with a couple clicks then customize. Persist settings across invocations -- .NET has the support; just use a few lines of code to glue them together. Migrate settings with a new version -- a powerful one, available with one line of code. Tooltips (and infotips) -- .NET includes just plain text tooltips; third-party libraries provide richer ones. Diagnostic support -- TraceSources, TraceListeners, and more are built-in. Internationalization -- support for tailoring your app to languages other than your own. LIST B: Components not provided by .NET These are not supplied at all by .NET or supplied only as rudimentary elements requiring substantial work to be realized. Splash screen -- a small window present during program startup with your logo, loading messages, etc. Tip of the day -- a mini-tutorial presented one bit at a time each time the user starts your app. Check for available updates -- facility to query a server to see if the user is running the latest version of your app, then provide a simple way to upgrade if a new version is found. Maximize to multiple monitors -- the canonical window allows you to maximize to a single monitor only; in my apps I allow maximizing across multiple monitors with a click. Taskbar notifier -- flash the taskbar when your backgrounded app has new info for the user. Options dialogs -- multi-page dialogs letting the user customize the app settings to his/her own preferences. Progress indicator -- for long running operations give the user feedback on how far there is left to go. Memory gauge -- an indicator (either absolute or percentage) of how much memory is used by your app. LIST C: Stylistic and/or tiny bits of functionality This list includes bits of functionality that are too tiny to merit being called a component, along with stylistic concerns (that admittedly do overlap with the Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines). Design a form for resizing -- unless you are restricting your form to be a fixed size, use anchors and docking so that it does what is reasonable when enlarged or shrunk by the user. Set tab order on a form -- repeated tab presses by the user should advance from field to field in a logical order rather than the default order in which you added fields. Adjust controls to be aware of operating modes -- When starting a background operation with, for example, a “Go” button, disable that “Go” button until the operation completes. Provide access keys for all menu items (per UXGuide). Provide shortcut keys for commonly used menu items (per UXGuide). Set up some (global or important or common) shortcut keys without associating to menu items. Allow some menu items to be invoked with or without modifier keys (shift, control, alt) where the modifier key is useful to vary the operation slightly. Hook up Escape and Enter on child forms to do what is reasonable. Decorate any library classes with documentation-comments and attributes -- this allows Visual Studio to leverage them for Intellisense and property descriptions. Spell check your code! What else would you include?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to write a maintainable web scraping app?

    - by Benj
    I wrote a perl script a while ago which logged into my online banking and emailed me my balance and a mini-statement every day. I found it very useful for keeping track of my finances. The only problem is that I wrote it just using perl and curl and it was quite complicated and hard to maintain. After a few instances of my bank changing their webpage I got fed up of debugging it to keep it up to date. So what's the best way of writing such a program in such a way that it's easy to maintain? I'd like to write a nice well engineered version in either Perl or Java which will be easy to update when the bank inevitably fiddle with their web site.

    Read the article

  • Connecting data to a GUI - OOP

    - by tau
    I have an application with several graphs and tables on it. I worked fast and just made classes like Graph and Table that each contained a request object (pseudo-code): class Graph { private request; public function setDateRange(dateRange) { request.setDateRange(dateRange); } public function refresh() { request.getData(function() { //refresh the display }); } } Upon a GUI event (say, someone changes the date range dropdown), I'd just call the setters on the Graph instance and then refresh it. Well, when I added other GUI elements like tables and whatnot, they all basically had similar methods (setDateRange and other things common to the request). What are some more elegant OOP ways of doing this? The application is very simple and I don't want to over-architect it, but I also don't want to have a bunch of classes with basically the same methods that are just routing to a request object. I also don't want to set up each GUI class as inheriting from the request class, but I'm open to any ideas really.

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Module Pattern - What about using "return this"?

    - by Rob
    After doing some reading about the Module Pattern, I've seen a few ways of returning the properties which you want to be public. One of the most common ways is to declare your public properties and methods right inside of the "return" statement, apart from your private properties and methods. A similar way (the "Revealing" pattern) is to provide simply references to the properties and methods which you want to be public. Lastly, a third technique I saw was to create a new object inside your module function, to which you assign your new properties before returning said object. This was an interesting idea, but requires the creation of a new object. So I was thinking, why not just use "this.propertyName" to assign your public properties and methods, and finally use "return this" at the end? This way seems much simpler to me, as you can create private properties and methods with the usual "var" or "function" syntax, or use the "this.propertyName" syntax to declare your public methods. Here's the method I'm suggesting: (function() { var privateMethod = function () { alert('This is a private method.'); } this.publicMethod = function () { alert('This is a public method.'); } return this; })(); Are there any pros/cons to using the method above? What about the others?

    Read the article

  • Why use hashing to create pathnames for large collections of files?

    - by Stephen
    Hi, I noticed a number of cases where an application or database stored collections of files/blobs using a has to determine the path and filename. I believe the intended outcome is a situation where the path never gets too deep, or the folders ever get too full - too many files (or folders) in a folder making for slower access. EDIT: Examples are often Digital libraries or repositories, though the simplest example I can think of (that can be installed in about 30s) is the Zotero document/citation database. Why do this? EDIT: thanks Mat for the answer - does this technique of using a hash to create a file path have a name? Is it a pattern? I'd like to read more, but have failed to find anything in the ACM Digital Library

    Read the article

  • Are we using IoC effectively?

    - by Juliet
    So my company uses Castle Windsor IoC container, but in a way that feels "off": All the data types are registered in code, not the config file. All data types are hard-coded to use one interface implementation. In fact, for nearly all given interfaces, there is and will only ever be one implementation. All registered data types have a default constructor, so Windsor doesn't instantiate an object graph for any registered types. The people who designed the system insist the IoC container makes the system better. We have 1200+ public classes, so its a big system, the kind where you'd expect to find a framework like Windsor. But I'm still skeptical. Is my company using IoC effectively? Is there an advantage to new'ing objects with Windsor than new'ing objects with the new keyword?

    Read the article

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Should Factories Persist Entities?

    - by mxmissile
    Should factories persist entities they build? Or is that the job of the caller? Pseudo Example Incoming: public class OrderFactory { public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); .... return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public OrderController(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); repository.Insert(order); ... } } or public class OrderFactory { public OrderFactory(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public Order Build() { var order = new Order(); ... repository.Insert(order); return order; } } public class OrderController : Controller { public ActionResult MyAction() { var order = factory.Build(); ... } } Is there a recommended practice here?

    Read the article

  • What is the best Design/Way to keep user connected ?

    - by Fasih Hansmukh
    Am working on a POC for self learning in which I want to keep my user connected in LIVE pattern. For example, A game in which 4 user can play at a time , here I need to keep this user connected to my game . M not good at Socket type of programming and love to do that in Services way.What i wana know is 'What is the best way of doing this'. According to my initial Brain Storming, I have decided that I will use SilverLight(In Browser Or Out of Browser) as Front end [I have no issue in that]. I m more concern in back end. Either I make an handler or make a WCF service or use full duplex service and use pooling mechanism for that. As a random thought I come up with a Timer type logic that will fire every after 10 seconds at clients end and get status like Is it now Its turn to roll a dice Home many user left (in case if some of them left) What are connected user status in game like there score/points ect and update game view according to this at his end Kindly place your best answers here that will help me to learn this. Regards and thanks in Advance EDIT: Starting Bounty as i need more feedback. FH

    Read the article

  • When are global variables acceptable?

    - by dsimcha
    Everyone here seems to hate global variables, but I see at least one very reasonable use for them: They are great for holding program parameters that are determined at program initialization and not modified afterwords. Do you agree that this is an exception to the "globals are evil" rule? Is there any other exception that you can think of, besides in quick and dirty throwaway code where basically anything goes? If not, why are globals so fundamentally evil that you do not believe that there are any exceptons?

    Read the article

  • how to handle exceptions/errors in php?

    - by fayer
    when using 3rd part libraries they tend to throw exceptions to the browser and hence kill the script. eg. if im using doctrine and insert a duplicate record to the database it will throw an exception. i wonder, what is best practice for handling these exceptions. should i always do a try...catch? but doesn't that mean that i will have try...catch all over the script and for every single function/class i use? Or is it just for debugging? i don't quite get the picture. Cause if a record already exists in a database, i want to tell the user "Record already exists". And if i code a library or a function, should i always use "throw new Expcetion($message, $code)" when i want to create an error? Please shed a light on how one should create/handle exceptions/errors. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Inheritance in tables - structure problem

    - by Naor
    I have 3 types of users in my system. each type has different information I created the following tables: BaseUser(base_user_id, username, password, additional common data) base_user_id is PK and Identity UserType1(user_id, data related to type1 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType2(user_id, data related to type2 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType3(user_id, data related to type3 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id Now I have relation from each type of user to warehouses table. Users from type1 and type2 should have only warehouse_id and users from type3 should have warehouse_id and customer_id. I thought about this structure: WarehouseOfUser(base_user_id,warehouse_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser WarehouseOfTyp3User(base_user_id,warehouse_id, customer_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser The problem is that such structure allows 2 things I want to prevent: 1. add to WarehouseOfTyp3User data of user from type2 or type1. 2. add to WarehouseOfUser data of user from type3. what is the best structure for such case?

    Read the article

  • Undo/Redo using Memento: Stack, Queue or just LinkedList?

    - by serhio
    What is the best having when implementing Memento pattern (for Undo/Redo) in witch collection to Keep Mementos? Basically, I need this(c = change, u = undo, r = redo): 0 *c -1 0 *c -2 -1 0 *c -3 -2 -1 0 <u -2 -1 0 1 *c -3 -2 -1 0 Variants: LinkedList - possible in principle, maybe not optimized. Queue - not adapted for this task, IMO. Stack - not adapted for undo AND redo; Double Stack - maybe optimal, but can't control the undo maximum size.

    Read the article

  • How to design authentication in a thick client, to be fail safe?

    - by Jay
    Here's a use case: I have a desktop application (built using Eclipse RCP) which on start, pops open a dialog box with 'UserName' and 'Password' fields in it. Once the end user, inputs his UserName and Password, a server is contacted (a spring remote-servlet, with the client side being a spring httpclient: similar to the approaches here.), and authentication is performed on the server side. A few questions related to the above mentioned scenario: If said this authentication service were to go down, what would be the best way to handle further proceedings? Authentication is something that I cannot do away with. Would running the desktop client in a "limited" mode be a good idea? For instance, important features/menus/views will be disabled, rest of the application will be accessible? Should I have a back up authentication service running on a different machine, working as a backup? What are the general best-practices in this scenario? I remember reading about google gears and how it would let you edit and do stuff offline - should something like this be designed? Please let me know your design/architectural comments/suggestions. Appreciate your help.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >