Search Results

Search found 17326 results on 694 pages for 'design pattern'.

Page 113/694 | < Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >

• which style of member-access is preferable

  - by itwasntpete

  the purpose of oop using classes is to encapsulate members from the outer space. i always read that accessing members should be done by methods. for example: template<typename T> class foo_1 { T state_; public: // following below }; the most common doing that by my professor was to have a get and set method. // variant 1 T const& getState() { return state_; } void setState(T const& v) { state_ = v; } or like this: // variant 2 // in my opinion it is easier to read T const& state() { return state_; } void state(T const& v) { state_ = v; } assume the state_ is a variable, which is checked periodically and there is no need to ensure the value (state) is consistent. Is there any disadvantage of accessing the state by reference? for example: // variant 3 // do it by reference T& state() { return state_; } or even directly, if I declare the variable as public. template<typename T> class foo { public: // variant 4 T state; }; In variant 4 I could even ensure consistence by using c++11 atomic. So my question is, which one should I prefer?, Is there any coding standard which would decline one of these pattern? for some code see here

  Read the article

• Designing business objects, and gui actions

  - by fozz

  Developing a product ordering system using Java SE 6. The previous implementations used combo boxes, text fields, and check boxes. Preforming validation on action events from the GUI. The validation includes limiting existing combo boxes items, or even availability. The issue in the old system was that the action was received and all rules were applied to the entire business object. This resulted in a huge event change as options were changed multiple times. To be honest I have no idea how an infinite loop wasn't produced. Through the next iteration I stepped in and attempted to limit the chaos by controlling the order in which the selections could be made. Making configuration of BO's a top down approach. I implemented custom box models, action events, beans/binding, and an MVC pattern. However I still am unable to fully isolate action even chains. I'm thinking that I've approached the whole concept backwards in an attempt to stay closest to what was already in place. So the question becomes what do I design instead? I'm currently considering an implementation of Interfaces, Beans, Property Change Listeners to manage the back and forth. Other thoughts were validation exceptions, dynamic proxies.... I'm sure there are a ton of different ways. To say that one way is right is crazy, and I'm sure it will take a blending of multiple patterns. My knowledge of swing/awt validation is limited, previously I did backend logic only. Other considerations are were some sort of binding(jgoodies or otherwise) to directly bind GUI state to BO's.

  Read the article

• In MVC , DAO should be called from Controller or Model

  - by tito

  I have seen various arguments against the DAO being called from the Controller class directly and also the DAO from the Model class.Infact I personally feel that if we are following the MVC pattern , the controller should not coupled with the DAO , but the Model class should invoke the DAO from within and controller should invoke the model class.Why because , we can decouple the model class apart from a webapplication and expose the functionalities for various ways like for a REST service to use our model class. If we write the DAO invocation in the controller , it would not be possible for a REST service to reuse the functionality right ? I have summarized both the approaches below. Approach #1 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Approach #2 public class CustomerController extends HttpServlet { proctected void doPost(....) { Customer customer = new Customer("xxxxx","23",1); customer.save(customer); } } public class Customer { ........... private void save(Customer customer){ new CustomerDAO().save(customer); } } Note- Here is what a definition of Model is : Model: The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain, responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the controller). In event-driven systems, the model notifies observers (usually views) when the information changes so that they can react. I would need an expert opinion on this because I find many using #1 or #2 , So which one is it ?

  Read the article

• Abstract Factory Method and Polymorphism

  - by Scotty C.

  Being a PHP programmer for the last couple of years, I'm just starting to get into advanced programming styles and using polymorphic patterns. I was watching a video on polymorphism the other day, and the guy giving the lecture said that if at all possible, you should get rid of if statements in your code, and that a switch is almost always a sign that polymorphism is needed. At this point I was quite inspired and immediately went off to try out these new concepts, so I decided to make a small caching module using a factory method. Of course the very first thing I have to do is create a switch to decide what file encoding to choose. DANG! class Main { public static function methodA($parameter='') { switch ($parameter) { case 'a': $object = new \name\space\object1(); break; case 'b': $object = new \name\space\object2(); break; case 'c': $object = new \name\space\object3(); break; default: $object = new \name\space\object1(); } return (sekretInterface $object); } } At this point I'm not really sure what to do. As far as I can tell, I either have to use a different pattern and have separate methods for each object instance, or accept that a switch is necessary to "switch" between them. What do you guys think?

  Read the article

• Algorithms or patterns for a linked question and answer cost calculator

  - by kmc

  I've been asked to build an online calculator in PHP (and the Laravel framework). It will take the answers to a series of questions to estimate the cost of a home extension. For example, a couple of questions may be: What is the lie of your property? Flat, slightly inclined, heavily inclined. (these suggestive values could have specific values in the underlying calculator like, 0 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees. What is your current flooring system? Wooden, or concrete? These would then impact the results of other questions. Once the size of the extension has been input, the lie of the land will affect how much site works will cost, and how much rubbish collection will cost. The second question will impact the cost of the extensions flooring, as stumping and laying floorboards is a different cost to laying foundations and a concrete slab. It will also influence what heating and cooling systems are available in the calculator. So it's VERY interlinked. The answer to any question can influence the options of other questions, and the end result. I'm having trouble figuring out an approach to this that will allow new options and questions to be plugged in at a later stage without having things too coupled. The Observer pattern, or Laravel's events may be handy, but currently the sheer breadth of the calculator has me struggling to gather my thoughts and see a sensible implementation. Are there any patterns or OO approaches that may help? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Inheritance vs containment while extending a large legacy project

  - by Flot2011

  I have got a legacy Java project with a lot of code. The code uses MVC pattern and is well structured and well written. It also has a lot of unit tests and it is still actively maintained (bug fixing, minor features adding). Therefore I want to preserve the original structure and code style as much as possible. The new feature I am going to add is a conceptual one, so I have to make my changes all over the code. In order to minimize changes I decided not to extend existing classes but to use containment: class ExistingClass { // .... existing code // my code adding new functionality private ExistingClassExtension extension = new ExistingClassExtension(); public ExistingClassExtension getExtension() {return extension;} } ... // somewhere in code ExistingClass instance = new ExistingClass(); ... // when I need a new functionality instance.getExtension().newMethod1(); All functionality that I am adding is inside a new ExistingClassExtension class. Actually I am adding only these 2 lines to each class that needs to be extended. By doing so I also do not need to instantiate new, extended classes all over the code and I may use existing tests to make sure there is no regression. However my colleagues argue that in this situation doing so isn't a proper OOP approach, and I need to inherit from ExistingClass in order to add a new functionality. What do you think? I am aware of numerous inheritance/containment questions here, but I think my question is different.

  Read the article

• Designs for outputting to a spreadsheet

  - by Austin Moore

  I'm working on a project where we are tasked to gather and output various data to a spreadsheet. We are having tons of problems with the file that holds the code to write the spreadsheet. The cell that the data belongs to is hardcoded, so anytime you need to add anything to the middle of the spreadsheet, you have to increment the location for all the fields after that in the code. There are random blank rows, to add padding between sections, and subsections within the sections, so there's no real pattern that we can replicate. Essentially, anytime we have to add or change anything to the spreadsheet it requires a many long and tedious hours. The code is all in this one large file, hacked together overtime in Perl. I've come up with a few OO solutions, but I'm not too familiar with OO programming in Perl and all my attempts at it haven't been great, so I've shied away from it so far. I've suggested we handle this section of the program with a more OO friendly language, but we can't apparently. I've also suggested that we scrap the entire spreadsheet idea, and just move to a webpage, but we can't do that either. We've been working on this project for a few months, and every time we have to change that file, we all dread it. I'm thinking it's time to start some refactoring. However, I don't even know what could make this file easier to work with. The way the output is formatted makes it so that it has to be somewhat hardcoded. I'm wondering if anyone has insight on any design patterns or techniques they have used to tackle a similar problem. I'm open to any ideas. Perl specific answers are welcome, but I am also interested in language-agnostic solutions.

  Read the article

• Who can change the View in MVC?

  - by Luke

  I'm working on a thick client graph displaying and manipulation application. I'm trying to apply the MVC pattern to our 3D visualization component. Here is what I have for the Model, View, and Controller: Model - The graph and it's metadata. This includes vertices, edges, and the attributes of each. It does not contain position information, icons, colors, or anything display related. View - This would commonly be called a scene graph. It includes the 3D display information, texture information, color information, and anything else that is related specifically to the visualization of the model. Controller - The controller takes the view and displays it in a Window using OpenGL (but it could potentially be any 3D graphics package). The application has various "layouts" that change the position of the vertices in the display. For instance, one layout may arrange the vertices in a circle. Is it common for these layouts to access and change the view directly? Should they go through the Controller to access the View? If they go through the Controller, should they just ask for direct access to the View or should each change go through the controller? I realize this is a bit different from the standard MVC example where there a finite number of Views. In this case, the View can change in an infinite number of ways. Perhaps I'm shattering some basic principle of MVC here. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• best way to send messages to all subscribers with multiple subscriptions and multiple providers

  - by coding_idiot

  I'm writing an application in which - Many users can subsribe to posts made by another users. So for a single publisher there can be many subscribers. When a message is posted by an user X, all users who have subscribed to messages of User X will be sent an email. How to achieve this ? I'm thinking of using publish-subscribe pattern. And then I came through JMS. Which is the best JMS implementation to use according to your experience ? Or else what else solution do you propose to the given problem ? Shall I go for a straight-forward solution ?: User x posts a message, I find all users (from database) who subscribe to user x and then for every user, I call the sendEmail() method. [EDIT] My intention here is not to send-emails. I'm really sorry if it wasn't clear. I also have to send kind of system-notifications apart from Email to all subscribers. Right now, I've implemented the email-sending as a threadPool

  Read the article

• Triggering Data Changes in N-Tier

  - by Ryan Kinal

  I've been studying n-tier architectures as of late, particularly in VB.NET with Entity Framework and/or LINQ to SQL. I understand the basic concepts, but have been wondering about best practices in regard to triggering CRUD-type operations from user input/action. So, the arcitecture looks something like the following: [presentation layer] - [business layer] - [data layer] - (database) Getting information from the database into the presentation layer is simple and abstracted. It's just a matter of instantiating a new object from the business layer, which in turn uses the data layer to get at the correct information. However, saving (updating and inserting), and deleting seem to require particular APIs on the relevant business objects. I have to assume this is standard practice, unless a business object will save itself on various operations (which seems inefficient), or on disposal (which seems like it just wouldn't work, or may be unwieldy and unreliable). Should my "savable" business objects all implement a particular "ISavable" or "IDatabaseObject" interface? Is this a recognized (anti-)pattern? Are there other, better patterns I should be using that I'm just unaware of? The TLDR question, I suppose, is How does the presentation layer trigger database changes?

  Read the article

• Anemic Domain Model, Business Logic and DataMapper (PHP)

  - by sunwukung

  I've implemented a rudimentary ORM layer based on DataMapper (I don't want to use a full blown ORM like Propel/Doctrine - for anything beyond simple fetch/save ops I prefer to access the data directly layer using a SQL abstraction layer). Following the DataMapper pattern, I've endeavoured to keep all persistence operations in the Mapper - including the location of related entities. My Entities have access to their Mapper, although I try not to call Mapper logic from the Entity interface (although this would be simple enough). The result is: // get a mapper and produce an entity $ProductMapper = $di->get('product_mapper'); $Product = $ProductMapper->find('[email protected]','email'); //.. mutaute some values.. save $ProductMapper->save($Product) // uses __get to trigger relation acquisition $Manufacturer = $Product->manufacturer; I've read some articles regarding the concept of an Anemic Domain model, i.e. a Model that does not contain any "business logic". When demonstrating the sort of business logic ideally suited to a Domain Model, however, acquiring related data items is a common example. Therefore I wanted to ask this question: Is persistence logic appropriate in Domain Model objects?

  Read the article

• Is there a common programming term for the problems of adding features to an already-featureful program?

  - by Jeremy Friesner

  I'm looking for a commonly used programming term to describe a software-engineering phenomenon, which (for lack of a better way to describe it) I'll illustrate first with a couple of examples-by-analogy: Scenario 1: We want to build/extend a subway system on the outskirts of a small town in Wyoming. There are the usual subway-problems to solve, of course (hiring the right construction company, choosing the best route, buying the subway cars), but other than that it's pretty straightforward to implement the system because there aren't a huge number of constraints to satisfy. Scenario 2: Same as above, except now we need to build/extend the subway system in downtown Los Angeles. Here we face all of the problems we did in case (1), but also additional problems -- most of the applicable space is already in use, and has a vocal constituency which will protest loudly if we inconvenience them by repurposing, redesigning, or otherwise modifying the infrastructure that they rely on. Because of this, extensions to the system happen either very slowly and expensively, or they don't happen at all. I sometimes see a similar pattern with software development -- adding a new feature to a small/simple program is straightforward, but as the program grows, adding further new features becomes more and more difficult, if only because it is difficult to integrate the new feature without adversely affecting any of the large number of existing use-cases or user-constituencies. (even with a robust, adaptable program design, you run into the problem of the user interface becoming so elaborate that the program becomes difficult to learn or use) Is there a term for this phenomenon?

  Read the article

• Making a class pseudo-immutable by setting a flag

  - by scott_fakename

  I have a java project that involves building some pretty complex objects. There are quite a lot (dozens) of different ones and some of them have a HUGE number of parameters. They also need to be immutable. So I was thinking the builder pattern would work, but it ends up require a lot of boilerplate. Another potential solution I thought of was to make a mutable class, but give it a "frozen" flag, a-la ruby. Here is a simple example: public class EqualRule extends Rule { private boolean frozen; private int target; public EqualRule() { frozen = false; } public void setTarget(int i) { if (frozen) throw new IllegalStateException( "Can't change frozen rule."); target = i; } public int getTarget() { return target; } public void freeze() { frozen = true; } @Override public boolean checkRule(int i) { return (target == i); } } and "Rule" is just an abstract class that has an abstract "checkRule" method. This cuts way down on the number of objects I need to write, while also giving me an object that becomes immutable for all intents and purposes. This kind of act like the object was its own Builder... But not quite. I'm not too excited, however, about having an immutable being disguised as a bean however. So I had two questions: 1. Before I go too far down this path, are there any huge problems that anyone sees right off the bat? For what it's worth, it is planned that this behavior will be well documented... 2. If so, is there a better solution? Thanks

  Read the article

• How to control messages to the same port from different emitters?

  - by Alex In Paris

  Scene: A company has many factories X, each emits a message to the same receive port in a Biztalk server Y; if all messages are processed without much delay, each will trigger an outgoing message to another system Z. Problem: Sometimes a factory loses its connection for a half-day or more and, when the connection is reestablished, thousands of messages get emitted. Now, the messages still get processed well by Y (Biztalk can easily handle the load) but system Z can't handle the flood and may lock up and severely delay the processing of all other messages from the other X. What is the solution? Creating multiple receive locations that permits us to pause one X or another would lose us information if the factory isn't smart enough to know whether the message was received or not. What is the basic pattern to apply in Biztalk for this problem? Would some throttling parameters help to limit the flow from any one X? Or are their techniques on the end part of Y which I should use instead ? I would prefer this last one since I can be confident that the message box will remember any failures, which could then be resumed.

  Read the article

• When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

  - by missingno

  Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

  Read the article

• How to avoid the GameManager god object?

  - by lorancou

  I just read an answer to a question about structuring game code. It made me wonder about the ubiquitous GameManager class, and how it often becomes an issue in a production environment. Let me describe this. First, there's prototyping. Nobody cares about writing great code, we just try to get something running to see if the gameplay adds up. Then there's a greenlight, and in an effort to clean things up, somebody writes a GameManager. Probably to hold a bunch of GameStates, maybe to store a few GameObjects, nothing big, really. A cute, little, manager. In the peaceful realm of pre-production, the game is shaping up nicely. Coders have proper nights of sleep and plenty of ideas to architecture the thing with Great Design Patterns. Then production starts and soon, of course, there is crunch time. Balanced diet is long gone, the bug tracker is cracking with issues, people are stressed and the game has to be released yesterday. At that point, usually, the GameManager is a real big mess (to stay polite). The reason for that is simple. After all, when writing a game, well... all the source code is actually here to manage the game. It's easy to just add this little extra feature or bugfix in the GameManager, where everything else is already stored anyway. When time becomes an issue, no way to write a separate class, or to split this giant manager into sub-managers. Of course this is a classical anti-pattern: the god object. It's a bad thing, a pain to merge, a pain to maintain, a pain to understand, a pain to transform. What would you suggest to prevent this from happening?

  Read the article

• Which are the best ways to organize view hierarchies in GUI interfaces?

  - by none

  I'm currently trying to figure out the best techniques for organizing GUI view hierarchies, that is dividing a window into several panels which are in turn divided into other components. I've given a look to the Composite Design Pattern, but I don't know if I can find better alternatives, so I'd appreciate to know if using the Composite is a good idea, or it would be better looking for some other techniques. I'm currently developing in Java Swing, but I don't think that the framework or the language can have a great impact on this. Any help will be appreciated. ---------EDIT------------ I was currently developing a frame containing three labels, one button and a text field. At the button pressed, the content inside the text field would be searched, and the results written inside the three labels. One of my typical structure would be the following: MainWindow | Main panel | Panel with text field and labels. | Panel with search button Now, as the title explains, I was looking for a suitable way of organizing both the MainPanel and the other two panels. But here came problems, since I'm not sure whether organizing them like attributes or storing inside some data structure (i.e. LinkedList or something like this). Anyway, I don't really think that both my solution are really good, so I'm wondering if there are really better approaches for facing this kind of problems. Hope it helps

  Read the article

• Hide or Show singleton?

  - by Sinker

  Singleton is a common pattern implemented in both native libraries of .NET and Java. You will see it as such: C#: MyClass.Instance Java: MyClass.getInstance() The question is: when writing APIs, is it better to expose the singleton through a property or getter, or should I hide it as much as possible? Here are the alternatives for illustrative purposes: Exposed(C#): private static MyClass instance; public static MyClass Instance { get { if (instance == null) instance = new MyClass(); return instance; } } public void PerformOperation() { ... } Hidden (C#): private static MyClass instance; public static void PerformOperation() { if (instance == null) { instance = new MyClass(); } ... } EDIT: There seems to be a number of detractors of the Singleton design. Great! Please tell me why and what is the better alternative. Here is my scenario: My whole application utilises one logger (log4net/log4j). Whenever, the program has something to log, it utilises the Logger class (e.g. Logger.Instance.Warn(...) or Logger.Instance.Error(...) etc. Should I use Logger.Warn(...) or Logger.Warn(...) instead? If you have an alternative to singletons that addresses my concern, then please write an answer for it. Thank you :)

  Read the article

• User oriented regex library for java

  - by Maxim Veksler

  Hello, I'm looking for a library that could perform "easy" pattern matching, a kind of pattern that can be exposed via GUI to users. It should define a simple matching syntax like * matches any char and alike. In other words, I want to do glob (globbing) like sun's implemented logic http://openjdk.java.net/projects/nio/javadoc/java/nio/file/PathMatcher.html but without relation to the file system. Ideas?

  Read the article

• Optimizing a lot of Scanner.findWithinHorizon(pattern, 0) calls

  - by darvids0n

  I'm building a process which extracts data from 6 csv-style files and two poorly laid out .txt reports and builds output CSVs, and I'm fully aware that there's going to be some overhead searching through all that whitespace thousands of times, but I never anticipated converting about about 50,000 records would take 12 hours. Excerpt of my manual matching code (I know it's horrible that I use lists of tokens like that, but it was the best thing I could think of): public static String lookup(List<String> tokensBefore, List<String> tokensAfter) { String result = null; while(_match(tokensBefore)) { // block until all input is read if(id.hasNext()) { result = id.next(); // capture the next token that matches if(_matchImmediate(tokensAfter)) // try to match tokensAfter to this result return result; } else return null; // end of file; no match } return null; // no matches } private static boolean _match(List<String> tokens) { return _match(tokens, true); } private static boolean _match(List<String> tokens, boolean block) { if(tokens != null && !tokens.isEmpty()) { if(id.findWithinHorizon(tokens.get(0), 0) == null) return false; for(int i = 1; i <= tokens.size(); i++) { if (i == tokens.size()) { // matches all tokens return true; } else if(id.hasNext() && !id.next().matches(tokens.get(i))) { break; // break to blocking behaviour } } } else { return true; // empty list always matches } if(block) return _match(tokens); // loop until we find something or nothing else return false; // return after just one attempted match } private static boolean _matchImmediate(List<String> tokens) { if(tokens != null) { for(int i = 0; i <= tokens.size(); i++) { if (i == tokens.size()) { // matches all tokens return true; } else if(!id.hasNext() || !id.next().matches(tokens.get(i))) { return false; // doesn't match, or end of file } } return false; // we have some serious problems if this ever gets called } else { return true; // empty list always matches } } Basically wondering how I would work in an efficient string search (Boyer-Moore or similar). My Scanner id is scanning a java.util.String, figured buffering it to memory would reduce I/O since the search here is being performed thousands of times on a relatively small file. The performance increase compared to scanning a BufferedReader(FileReader(File)) was probably less than 1%, the process still looks to be taking a LONG time. I've also traced execution and the slowness of my overall conversion process is definitely between the first and last like of the lookup method. In fact, so much so that I ran a shortcut process to count the number of occurrences of various identifiers in the .csv-style files (I use 2 lookup methods, this is just one of them) and the process completed indexing approx 4 different identifiers for 50,000 records in less than a minute. Compared to 12 hours, that's instant. Some notes (updated): I don't necessarily need the pattern-matching behaviour, I only get the first field of a line of text so I need to match line breaks or use Scanner.nextLine(). All ID numbers I need start at position 0 of a line and run through til the first block of whitespace, after which is the name of the corresponding object. I would ideally want to return a String, not an int locating the line number or start position of the result, but if it's faster then it will still work just fine. If an int is being returned, however, then I would now have to seek to that line again just to get the ID; storing the ID of every line that is searched sounds like a way around that. Anything to help me out, even if it saves 1ms per search, will help, so all input is appreciated. Thankyou! Usage scenario 1: I have a list of objects in file A, who in the old-style system have an id number which is not in file A. It is, however, POSSIBLY in another csv-style file (file B) or possibly still in a .txt report (file C) which each also contain a bunch of other information which is not useful here, and so file B needs to be searched through for the object's full name (1 token since it would reside within the second column of any given line), and then the first column should be the ID number. If that doesn't work, we then have to split the search token by whitespace into separate tokens before doing a search of file C for those tokens as well. Generalised code: String field; for (/* each record in file A */) { /* construct the rest of this object from file A info */ // now to find the ID, if we can List<String> objectName = new ArrayList<String>(1); objectName.add(Pattern.quote(thisObject.fullName)); field = lookup(objectSearchToken, objectName); // search file B if(field == null) // not found in file B { lookupReset(false); // initialise scanner to check file C objectName.clear(); // not using the full name String[] tokens = thisObject.fullName.split(id.delimiter().pattern()); for(String s : tokens) objectName.add(Pattern.quote(s)); field = lookup(objectSearchToken, objectName); // search file C lookupReset(true); // back to file B } else { /* found it, file B specific processing here */ } if(field != null) // found it in B or C thisObject.ID = field; } The objectName tokens are all uppercase words with possible hyphens or apostrophes in them, separated by spaces. Much like a person's name. As per a comment, I will pre-compile the regex for my objectSearchToken, which is just [\r\n]+. What's ending up happening in file C is, every single line is being checked, even the 95% of lines which don't contain an ID number and object name at the start. Would it be quicker to use ^[\r\n]+.*(objectname) instead of two separate regexes? It may reduce the number of _match executions. The more general case of that would be, concatenate all tokensBefore with all tokensAfter, and put a .* in the middle. It would need to be matching backwards through the file though, otherwise it would match the correct line but with a huge .* block in the middle with lots of lines. The above situation could be resolved if I could get java.util.Scanner to return the token previous to the current one after a call to findWithinHorizon. I have another usage scenario. Will put it up asap.

  Read the article

• List/Grid Toggle for Photo Gallery with Shadowbox

  - by InfamouslyBubbly

  so I'm new to this site, and new to jquery, and javascript as a whole really, but I have very good comprehension of HTML and CSS. For a class in school, I'm making a photo gallery webpage using the Shadowbox plugin. I have that part all down, but one of the requirements is to add some sort of user option that the user can change that will get saved in a cookie. (I haven't gotten to the cookie part yet) For my option, I decided to add a toggle that will switch the view of the page from a grid view (default) with images, to a list view of just the captions of the images. I figured out how to do that, but decided it could probably done in a much simpler fashion with the use of loops. Here is the HTML I have: <body> <div id="preferences"> <h1>My Photo Gallery</h1> <ul id="options"> <li><a href="#" id="list"><img src="media/listview.png" alt="List view"/></a></li> <li><a href="#" id="grid"><img src="media/gridview.png" alt="List view"/></a></li> </ul> </div> <div id="gallery"> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l1 img" href="media/img1.jpg" title="Black and White Leopard Pattern"><img src="media/thumb1.jpg" alt="Black and White Leopard Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l2 img" href="media/img2.jpg" title="Snow Leopard Pattern"><img src="media/thumb2.jpg" alt="Snow Leopard Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l3 img" href="media/img3.jpg" title="Colorful Triangle Pattern"><img src="media/thumb3.jpg" alt="Colurful Triangle Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l4 img" href="media/img4.jpg" title="Tie Dye Zebra Stripe Pattern"><img src="media/thumb4.jpg" alt="Tie Dye Zebra Stripe Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l5 img" href="media/img5.jpg" title="Blue Knitted Pattern"><img src="media/thumb5.jpg" alt="Blue Knitted Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l6 img" href="media/img6.jpg" title="Black and White Damask Pattern"><img src="media/thumb6.jpg" alt="Black and White Damask Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l7 img" href="media/img7.jpg" title="Wooden Panel Pattern"><img src="media/thumb7.jpg" alt="Wooden Panel Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l8 img" href="media/img8.jpg" title="Brick Pattern"><img src="media/thumb8.jpg" alt="Brick Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l9 img" href="media/img9.jpg" title="Watercolor Pattern"><img src="media/thumb9.jpg" alt="Watercolor Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l10 img" href="media/img10.jpg" title="Orange Stripe Pattern"><img src="media/thumb10.jpg" alt="Orange Stripe Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l11 img" href="media/img11.jpg" title="Blue Scales Pattern"><img src="media/thumb11.jpg" alt="Blue Scales Pattern"/></a> <a rel="shadowbox[Gallery]" class="l12 img" href="media/img12.jpg" title="Woven Pattern"><img src="media/thumb12.jpg" alt="Woven Pattern"/></a> </div> </body> So here is the sample that works (for the list portion anyways), but seems excessive in terms of code since I'd have to repeat for each image: $(document).ready(function(){ $( "#list" ).click(function() { $( "a.l1" ).removeClass( "img" ); $( "a.l1" ).addClass( "lst" ); $( "a.l1" ).text( $( "a.l1" ).attr( "title" ); //repeat for l1 through l12 (that`s the letter L not a 1) }); $( "#grid" ).click(function() { $( "a.l1" ).removeClass( "lst" ); $( "a.l1" ).addClass( "grid" ); //actually have no idea at all how to get this back to the original img tag other than maybe .innerHTML??? //repeat for l1 through l12 (again, that`s the letter L not a 1) }); }): And here is kinda how I'd like it (Y'know, except in a way that works) $(document).ready(function(){ var i = 1; var selcur = $( "'a.l" + i + "'" ); var title = selcur.attr( "title" ); var image = '<img src="media/thumb' + i + '.jpg" alt="' + title + '"/>'; $( "#list" ).click(function() { while (1<=12) { selcur.addClass("lst"); selcur.removeClass("img"); selcur.text( title ); i++; } i = 1; }); $( "#grid" ).click(function() { while (1<=12) { selcur.removeClass("lst"); selcur.addClass("img"); selcur.text( image ); i++; } i = 1; }); }); Please tell me how I am going about this wrong, keep in mind again I'm new to this, I appreciate any and all responses! Is there a better way to do this? I really want to keep it simple.

  Read the article

• Best way for an external (remote) graphics designer to style ASP.NET MVC 4 app?

  - by Tom K

  My customer has his own graphics designer he wants to use to style his web application we're building in ASP.NET MVC 4. Our solution is in Bitbucket, but if he can't run it what choices do we have? I doubt he uses Visual Studio 2012. One idea is for us to publish to our solution to a file system, send it to him, have him create a local IIS website on his machine (assuming he isn't using a Mac). Mocking data or pointing to a test SQL in Azure isn't a problem. Then he can make changes to .css and .cshtml files. Will this even work? The point is that he needs to be able to test his changes. I know he can modify the views and just check-in. But he needs to deliver a working design. So it seems inefficient. The graphics designer will have access to our test site so he can see how it works, what data we have and fields. Another idea is for him to build a static mock site using just HTML/CSS. Later I'd integrate his styles into customer's solution, split his html into partial views which we use and add Razor syntax. Again, we'd like to leverage graphics designer for all of this. Is there a best practice documented around this subject? How do other teams deal with this situation?

  Read the article

• Question about API and Web application code sharing

  - by opendd

  This is a design question. I have a multi part application with several user types. There is a user client for the patient that interacts with a web service. There is an API evolving behind the web service that will be exposed to institutional "users" and an interface for clinicians, researchers and admin types. The patient UI is Flex. The clinician/admin portion of the application is RoR. The API is RoR/rack based. The web service component is Java WS. All components access the same data source. These components are deployed as separate components to their own subdomains. This decision was made to allow for scaling the components individually as needed. Initially, the decision was made to split the code for the RoR Web application from the RoR API. This decision was made in the interests of security and keeping the components focused on specific tasks. Over the course of time, there is necessarily going to be overlap and I am second guessing my decision to keep the code totally separate. I am noticing code being lifted from the admin side being lifted, modified and used in the API. This being the case, I have been considering merging the Ruby based repositories. I am interested in ideas and insight on this situation along with the reasoning behind your thoughts. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Do you need all that data?

  - by BuckWoody

  I read an amazing post over on ars technica (link: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/the-software-brains-behind-the-particle-colliders.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) abvout the LHC, or as they are also known, the "particle colliders". Beyond just the pure scientific geek awesomeness, these instruments have the potential to collect more data than you can (or possibly should) store. Actually, this problem has a lot in common with a BI system. There's so much granular detail available in the source systems that a designer has to decide how, and how much, to roll up the data. Whenver you do that, you lose fidelity, but in many cases that's OK. Take, for example, your car's speedometer. You don't actually need to track each and every point of speed as it happens. You only need to know that you're hovering around the speed limit at a certain point in time. Since this is the way that humans percieve data, is there some lesson we should take in the design of data "flows" - and what implications does this have for new technologies like StreamInsight? Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

  Read the article

• Game Components, Game Managers and Object Properties

  - by George Duckett

  I'm trying to get my head around component based entity design. My first step was to create various components that could be added to an object. For every component type i had a manager, which would call every component's update function, passing in things like keyboard state etc. as required. The next thing i did was remove the object, and just have each component with an Id. So an object is defined by components having the same Ids. Now, i'm thinking that i don't need a manager for all my components, for example i have a SizeComponent, which just has a Size property). As a result the SizeComponent doesn't have an update method, and the manager's update method does nothing. My first thought was to have an ObjectProperty class which components could query, instead of having them as properties of components. So an object would have a number of ObjectProperty and ObjectComponent. Components would have update logic that queries the object for properties. The manager would manage calling the component's update method. This seems like over-engineering to me, but i don't think i can get rid of the components, because i need a way for the managers to know what objects need what component logic to run (otherwise i'd just remove the component completely and push its update logic into the manager). Is this (having ObjectProperty, ObjectComponent and ComponentManager classes) over-engineering? What would be a good alternative?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120  | Next Page >