Search Results

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

Page 115/694 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

• How would you TDD the functionality of getting the corresponding process of a running windows service?

  - by Matt Spinelli

  Purpose Over the last year or more I've been learning unit testing via books I've read recently like The Art of Unit Testing, Working Effectively with Legacy Code, and others. I've also been using unit tests, mocking frameworks, and the like, periodically at work and definitely see the value. However, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my mind around TDD (as opposed to TAD) when the situation calls for code that is gong to mostly use external API calls. Problem to solve Get the process associated with a windows service using the service name. example: Function GetProcess(ByVal serviceName As String) As Process Rules Show each major iteration in production & test code using TDD No need to see any other code or configuration that is required to get things to run. Just curious about the interfaces, concrete classes, and test methods. C# or VB.NET Must use the .Net framework regarding services/processes (i.e. System.Diagnostics.Process) Test Frameworks: Nunit or MSTest Isolation Frameworks: Moq, Rhino Mock, or Microsoft Moles Must write true unit tests (no integration tests) Additional notes As far as I can tell there are two approaches design wise. Use an Inversion of Control approach along with using the Adapter and/or Facade patterns to wrap the underlying .net framework objects dealing with processes and services. Keep the .net framework code in the class containing the Get Process method and use code detouring (interception) via Microsoft Moles to isolate the hard dependencies from the method under test.

  Read the article

• Approach for developing software that will need to be ported to multiple mobile platforms in the future

  - by Jonathan Henson

  I am currently doing the preliminary design for a new product my company will be pushing out soon. We will start on Android, but then we will need to quickly develop the IPhone, IPad.... and then the Windows 8 ports of the application. Basically the only code that wouldn't be reusable is the view specific code and the multimedia functions. This will be an SIP client (of course the user of the app will not know this) with several bells and whistles for our own business specific purposes. My initial thought is to develop all of the engine in C and provide a nice API for the C library since JAVA and .NET will allow native invoking, and I should just be able to directly link to the C lib in objective-C. Is there a better approach for vast code reuse which also remains close to the native platform? I.e. I don't want dependencies such as Mono-droid and the like or complicated interpreter/translator schemes. I don't mind re-coding the view(s) for each platform, but I do not want to have multiple versions of the main engine. Also, if I want to have some good abstraction mechanisms (like I would in say, C++) is this possible? I have read that C++ is not allowed for the IPad and Iphone devices. I would love to handle the media decoding in the C library, but I assume that this will be platform dependent so that probably will not be an option either. Any ideas here?

  Read the article

• Augmenting functionality of subclasses without code duplication in C++

  - by Rob W

  I have to add common functionality to some classes that share the same superclass, preferably without bloating the superclass. The simplified inheritance chain looks like this: Element -> HTMLElement -> HTMLAnchorElement Element -> SVGElement -> SVGAlement The default doSomething() method on Element is no-op by default, but there are some subclasses that need an actual implementation that requires some extra overridden methods and instance members. I cannot put a full implementation of doSomething() in Element because 1) it is only relevant for some of the subclasses, 2) its implementation has a performance impact and 3) it depends on a method that could be overridden by a class in the inheritance chain between the superclass and a subclass, e.g. SVGElement in my example. Especially because of the third point, I wanted to solve the problem using a template class, as follows (it is a kind of decorator for classes): struct Element { virtual void doSomething() {} }; // T should be an instance of Element template<class T> struct AugmentedElement : public T { // doSomething is expensive and uses T virtual void doSomething() override {} // Used by doSomething virtual bool shouldDoSomething() = 0; }; class SVGElement : public Element { /* ... */ }; class SVGAElement : public AugmentedElement<SVGElement> { // some non-trivial check bool shouldDoSomething() { /* ... */ return true; } }; // Similarly for HTMLAElement and others I looked around (in the existing (huge) codebase and on the internet), but didn't find any similar code snippets, let alone an evaluation of the effectiveness and pitfalls of this approach. Is my design the right way to go, or is there a better way to add common functionality to some subclasses of a given superclass?

  Read the article

• Methodologies for Managing Users and Access?

  - by MadBurn

  This is something I'm having a hard time getting my head around. I think I might be making it more complicated than it is. What I'm trying to do is develop a method to store users in a database with varying levels of access, throughout different applications. I know this has been done before, but I don't know where to find how they did it. Here is an example of what I need to accomplish: UserA - Access to App1, App3, App4 & can add new users to App3, but not 4 or 1. UserB - Access to App2 only with ReadOnly access. UserC - Access to App1 & App4 and is able to access Admin settings of both apps. In the past I've just used user groups. However, I'm reaching a phase where I need a bit more control over each individual user's access to certain parts of the different applications. I wish this were as cut and dry as being able to give a user a role and let each role inherit from the last. Now, this is what I need to accomplish. But, I don't know any methods of doing this. I could easily just design something that works, but I know this has been done and I know this has been studied and I know this problem has been solved by much better minds than my own. This is for a web application and using sql server 2008. I don't need to store passwords (LDAP) and the information I need to store is actually very limited. Basically just username and access.

  Read the article

• Benefits of classic OOP over Go-like language

  - by tylerl

  I've been thinking a lot about language design and what elements would be necessary for an "ideal" programming language, and studying Google's Go has led me to question a lot of otherwise common knowledge. Specifically, Go seems to have all of the interesting benefits from object oriented programming without actually having any of the structure of an object oriented language. There are no classes, only structures; there is no class/structure inheritance -- only structure embedding. There aren't any hierarchies, no parent classes, no explicit interface implementations. Instead, type casting rules are based on a loose system similar to duck-typing, such that if a struct implements the necessary elements of a "Reader" or a "Request" or an "Encoding", then you can cast it and use it as one. Does such a system obsolete the concept of OOP? Or is there something about OOP as implemented in C++ and Java and C# that is inherently more capable, more maintainable, somehow more powerful that you have to give up when moving to a language like Go? What benefit do you have to give up to gain the simplicity that this new paradigm represents?

  Read the article

• DB Schema for ACL involving 3 subdomains

  - by blacktie24

  Hi, I am trying to design a database schema for a web app which has 3 subdomains: a) internal employees b) clients c) contractors. The users will be able to communicate with each other to some degree, and there may be some resources that overlap between them. Any thoughts about this schema? Really appreciate your time and thoughts on this. Cheers! -- -- Table structure for table locations CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS locations ( id bigint(20) NOT NULL, name varchar(250) NOT NULL ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; -- -- Table structure for table privileges CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS privileges ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, resource_id int(11) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=10 ; -- -- Table structure for table resources CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS resources ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, user_type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ; -- -- Table structure for table roles CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS roles ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, name varchar(255) NOT NULL, type enum('position','department') NOT NULL, parent_id int(11) DEFAULT NULL, user_type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=3 ; -- -- Table structure for table role_perms CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS role_perms ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, role_id int(11) NOT NULL, privilege_id int(11) NOT NULL, mode varchar(250) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=2 ; -- -- Table structure for table users CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS users ( id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, email varchar(255) NOT NULL, password varchar(255) NOT NULL, salt varchar(255) NOT NULL, type enum('internal','client','expert') NOT NULL, first_name varchar(255) NOT NULL, last_name varchar(255) NOT NULL, location_id int(11) NOT NULL, phone varchar(255) NOT NULL, status enum('active','inactive') NOT NULL DEFAULT 'active', PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=4 ; -- -- Table structure for table user_perms CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS user_perms ( id int(11) NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, user_id int(11) NOT NULL, privilege_id int(11) NOT NULL, mode varchar(250) NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=2 ; -- -- Table structure for table user_roles CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS user_roles ( id int(11) NOT NULL, user_id int(11) NOT NULL, role_id int(11) NOT NULL ) ENGINE=InnoDB DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1;

  Read the article

• Using PDO with MVC

  - by mister martin

  I asked this question at stackoverflow and received no response (closed as duplicate with no answer). I'm experimenting with OOP and I have the following basic MVC layout: class Model { // do database stuff } class View { public function load($filename, $data = array()) { if(!empty($data)) { extract($data); } require_once('views/header.php'); require_once("views/$filename"); require_once('views/footer.php'); } } class Controller { public $model; public $view; function __construct() { $this->model = new Model(); $this->view = new View(); // determine what page we're on $page = isset($_GET['view']) ? $_GET['view'] : 'home'; $this->display($page); } public function display($page) { switch($page) { case 'home': $this->view->load('home.php'); break; } } } These classes are brought together in my setup file: // start session session_start(); require_once('Model.php'); require_once('View.php'); require_once('Controller.php'); new Controller(); Now where do I place my database connection code and how do I pass the connection onto the model? try { $db = new PDO('mysql:host='.DB_HOST.';dbname='.DB_DATABASE.'', DB_USERNAME, DB_PASSWORD); $db->setAttribute(PDO::ATTR_ERRMODE, PDO::ERRMODE_EXCEPTION); } catch(PDOException $err) { die($err->getMessage()); } I've read about Dependency Injection, factories and miscellaneous other design patterns talking about keeping SQL out of the model, but it's all over my head using abstract examples. Can someone please just show me a straight-forward practical example?

  Read the article

• Best way to go for simple online multi-player games?

  - by Mr_CryptoPrime

  I want to create a trivia game for my website. The graphic design does not have to be too fancy, probably no more advanced than a typical flash game. It needs to be secure because I want users to be able to play for real money. It also needs to run fast so users don't spend their time frustrated with game freezing. Compatibility, as with almost all online products, is key because of the large target market. I am most acquainted with Java programming, but I don't want to do it in Java if there is something much better. I am assuming I will have to utilize a variety of different languages in order for everything to come together. If someone could point out the main structure of everything so I could get a good start that would be great! 1) Language choice for simple secure online multiplayer games? 2) Perhaps use a database like MySQL, stored on a secure server for the trivia questions? 3) Free educational resources and even simpler projects to practice? Any ideas or suggestions would be helpful...Thanks!

  Read the article

• Advice on designing web application with a 40+ year lifetime

  - by user2708395

  Scenario Currently, I am apart of a health care project whose main requirement is to capture data with unknown attributes using user generated forms by health care providers. The second requirement is that data integrity is key and that the application will be used for 40+ years. We are currently migrating the client's data from the past 40 years from various sources (Paper, Excel, Access, etc...) to the database. Future requirements are: Workflow management of forms Schedule management of forms Security/Role based management Reporting engine Mobile/Tablet support Situation Only 6 months in, the current (contracted) architect/senior programmer has taken the "fast" approach and has designed a poor system. The database is not normalized, the code is coupled, the tiers have no dedicated purpose and data is starting to go missing since he has designed some beans to perform "deletes" on the database. The code base is extremely bloated and there are jobs just to synchronize data since the database is not normalized. His approach has been to rely on backup jobs to restore missing data and doesn't seem to believe in re-factoring. Having presented my findings to the PM, the architect will be removed when his contract ends. I have been given the task to re-architect this application. My team consists of me and one junior programmer. We have no other resources. We have been granted a 6-month requirement freeze in which we can focus on re-building this system. I suggested using a CMS system like Drupal, but for policy reasons at the client's organization, the system must be built from scratch. This is the first time that I will be designing a system with a 40+ lifespan. I have only worked on projects with 3-5 year lifespans, so this situation is very new, yet exciting. Questions What design considerations will make the system more "future proof"? What experiences have you had in designing such systems - both failures and successes? What questions should be asked to the client/PM to make the system more "future proof"?

  Read the article

• How to handle fine grained field-based ACL permissions in a RESTful service?

  - by Jason McClellan

  I've been trying to design a RESTful API and have had most of my questions answered, but there is one aspect of permissions that I'm struggling with. Different roles may have different permissions and different representations of a resource. For example, an Admin or the user himself may see more fields in his own User representation vs another less-privileged user. This is achieved simply by changing the representation on the backend, ie: deciding whether or not to include those fields. Additionally, some actions may be taken on a resource by some users and not by others. This is achieved by deciding whether or not to include those action items as links, eg: edit and delete links. A user who does not have edit permissions will not have an edit link. That covers nearly all of my permission use cases, but there is one that I've not quite figured out. There are some scenarios whereby for a given representation of an object, all fields are visible for two or more roles, but only a subset of those roles my edit certain fields. An example: { "person": { "id": 1, "name": "Bob", "age": 25, "occupation": "software developer", "phone": "555-555-5555", "description": "Could use some sunlight.." } } Given 3 users: an Admin, a regular User, and Bob himself (also a regular User), I need to be able to convey to the front end that: Admins may edit all fields, Bob himself may edit all fields, but a regular User, while they can view all fields, can only edit the description field. I certainly don't want the client to have to make the determination (or even, for that matter, to have any notion of the roles involved) but I do need a way for the backend to convey to the client which fields are editable. I can't simply use a combination of representation (the fields returned for viewing) and links (whether or not an edit link is availble) in this scenario since it's more finely grained. Has anyone solved this elegantly without adding the logic directly to the client?

  Read the article

• How can we best petition to bring Adobe creative software to Ubuntu?

  - by Sixthlaw

  Now I know its not as simple as asking for Adobe to support their design software on Ubuntu, but is there a way for the community and Canonical to make known to Adobe the rapidly growing amount of Linux users, and their desire for this great set of tools OFFICIALLY? I know that many of the answers I receive might be of the fashion "Its not going to happen", "use the free tools provided" or "Who knows it might happen in the near future", but this IS not what I am looking for. I have noticed, on sites like www.OmgUbuntu.com, there are links to pages where people can "like" the idea. Is there a way to try and get the whole community on board with this one, even Canonical, and as stated above, put forward this proposal to Adobe. The current requests for an Adobe CS, for Linux, are in dribs and drabs scattered all of the internet. Now is the best time to come up with productive solutions on how we can best gather statistics on the amount of people willing to buy the Adobe CS. These are the words of an Adobe employee: "I have forwarded this feedback on to the appropriate team who will consider it for future releases of Adobe software." The larger amount of people we have unified in the ONE community proposal, the greater chance we have of getting the software. How can we make this happen?

  Read the article

• Keeping a domain model consistent with actual data

  - by fstuijt

  Recently domain driven design got my attention, and while thinking about how this approach could help us I came across the following problem. In DDD the common approach is to retrieve entities (or better, aggregate roots) from a repository which acts as a in-memory collection of these entities. After these entities have been retrieved, they can be updated or deleted by the user, however after retrieval they are essentially disconnected from the data source and one must actively inform the repository to update the data source and make is consistent again with our in-memory representation. What is the DDD approach to retrieving entities that should remain connected to the data source? For example, in our situation we retrieve a series of sensors that have a specific measurement during retrieval. Over time, these measurement values may change and our business logic in the domain model should respond to these changes properly. E.g., domain events may be raised if a sensor value exceeds a predefined threshold. However, using the repository approach, these sensor values are just snapshots, and are disconnected from the data source. Does any of you have an idea on how to solve this following the DDD approach?

  Read the article

• Depending on fixed version of a library and ignore its updates

  - by Moataz Elmasry

  I was talking to a technical boss yesterday. Its about a project in C++ that depends on opencv and he wanted to include a specific opencv version into the svn and keep using this version ignoring any updates which I disagreed with.We had a heated discussion about that. His arguments: Everything has to be delivered into one package and we can't ask the client to install external libraries. We depend on a fixed version so that new updates of opencv won't screw our code. We can't guarantee that within a version update, ex from 3.2.buildx to 3.2.buildy. Buildy the function signatures won't change. My arguments: True everything has to be delivered to the client as one package,but that's what build scripts are for. They download the external libraries and create a bundle. Within updates of the same version 3.2.buildx to 3.2.buildy its impossible that a signature change, unless it is a really crappy framework, which isn't the case with opencv. We deprive ourselves from new updates and features of that library. If there's a bug in the version we took, and even if there's a bug fix later, we won't be able to get that fix. Its simply ineffiecient and anti design to depend on a certain version/build of an external library as it makes our project difficult in the future to adopt to new changes. So I'd like to know what you guys think. Does it really make sense to include a specific version of external library in our svn and keep using it ignoring all updates?

  Read the article

• Is wrapping a third party code the only solution to unit test its consumers? [closed]

  - by Songo

  I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Now some people argue that if a library is stable enough and won't change often then there is no need to wrap it. So assuming that Zend_Mail is stable and won't change and it fits my needs entirely, then I won't need a wrapper for it. Now take a look at my class Logger that depends on Zend_Mail: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Now is wrapping Zend_Mail the only solution or is there a better approach to this problem? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

  Read the article

• What are solutions and tradeoffs to maintain search result consistency in a web application

  - by iammichael

  Consider a web application with a custom search function that must display the results in a paged manner (twenty per page with up to hundreds of thousands of total results) and the ability to drill down to individual results that maintain next/previous links to navigate through the results. Re-executing the search on each page request to get the appropriate results for that page of data can be too expensive (up to 15s per search). Also, since the underlying data can change frequently (e.g. addition of new results), re-executing could cause the next/previous functionality to result in inconsistent behavior (e.g. the same results reappearing on a later page after having been viewed on an earlier page). What options exist to ensure the search results can be viewed across multiple pages in a consistent manner, and what tradeoffs does each option have in terms of network, CPU, memory, and storage requirements? EDIT: I thought caching the query search results was an obvious necessity. The question is really asking about where to cache the result set and what tradeoffs might exist to each. For example, storing the ids of the entities in the result set on the client, or storing the IDs of the entities themselves in the users session on the web server, or in a temporary table in the database. I'm not looking specifically for a single solution as different scenarios may result in different approaches (and such a question would be more suited for stackoverflow.com rather than here), but more of a design comparison between the possible approaches.

  Read the article

• Should I think about switching to another platform as a .Net developer? [closed]

  - by A. Karimi

  I’ve been a developer for about 10 years and I’ve almost worked on Microsoft stack. At the last several years I’ve been introduced to some good practices such as IoC and other primary design patterns. Now I feel so much comfortable using these patterns and concepts and I’m very angry why we didn’t do that earlier! They exist and used by many developers since more than 5 years ago but why I and many of my colleagues began using them a little later. As you may know Java developers are more ahead in these fields (concepts, patterns and …) than .Net developers. Am I right? Now the question is, “Why we (as .NET developers) weren’t ahead so much? Isn’t it because we are using Microsoft stack?”. I know ALT.NET but why we are trying make a closed ecosystem open and finding alternatives for Microsoft Echo Chamber, while there are natively open ecosystems like Java!? I've always liked most of the Microsoft works very much but I’m worried about this issue. I am even ask myself should I move to another platform?

  Read the article

• Static / Shared Helper Functions vs Built-In Methods

  - by Nathan

  This is a simple question but a design consideration that I often run across in my day to day development work. Lets say that you have a class that represents some kinds of collection. Public Class ModifiedCustomerOrders Public Property Orders as List(Of ModifiedOrders) End Class Within this class you do all kinds of important work, such as combining many different information sources and, eventually, build the Modified Customer Orders. Now, you have different processes that consume this class, each of which needs a slightly different slice of the ModifiedCustomerOrders items. To enable this, you want to add filtering functionality. How do you go about this? Do you: Add Filtering calls to the ModifiedCustomerOrders class so that you can say: MyOrdersClass.RemoveCanceledOrders() Create a Static / Shared "tooling" class that allows you to call: OrdersFilters.RemoveCanceledOrders(MyOrders) Create an extension method to accomplish the same feat as #2 but with less typing: MyOrders.RemoveCanceledOrders() Create a "Service" method that handles the getting of Orders as appropriate to the calling function, while using one of the previous approaches "under the hood". OrdersService.GetOrdersForProcessA() Others? I tend to prefer the tooling / extension method approaches as they make testing a little bit simpler. Although I dependency inject all my sourcing data into the ModifiedCustomerOrders, having it as part of the class makes it a little bit more complicated to test. Typically, I choose to use extension methods where I am doing parameterless transformations / filters. As they get more complex, I will move it into a static class instead. Thoughts on this approach? How would you approach it?

  Read the article

• Correct way to inject dependencies in Business logic service?

  - by Sri Harsha Velicheti

  Currently the structure of my application is as below Web App -- WCF Service (just a facade) -- Business Logic Services -- Repository - Entity Framework Datacontext Now each of my Business logic service is dependent on more than 5 repositories ( I have interfaces defined for all the repos) and I am doing a Constructor injection right now(poor mans DI instead of using a proper IOC as it was determined that it would be a overkill for our project). Repositories have references to EF datacontexts. Now some of the methods in the Business logic service require only one of the 5 repositories, so If I need to call that method I would end up instantiating a Service which will instatiate all 5 repositories which is a waste. An example: public class SomeService : ISomeService { public(IFirstRepository repo1, ISecondRepository repo2, IThirdRepository repo3) {} // My DoSomething method depends only on repo1 and doesn't use repo2 and repo3 public DoSomething() { //uses repo1 to do some stuff, doesn't use repo2 and repo3 } public DoSomething2() { //uses repo2 and repo3 to do something, doesn't require repo1 } public DoSomething3() { //uses repo3 to do something, doesn't require repo1 and repo2 } } Now if my I have to use DoSomething method on SomeService I end up creating both IFirstRepository,ISecondRepository and IThirdRepository but using only IFirstRepository, now this is bugging me, I can seem to accept that I am un-necessarily creating repositories and not using them. Is this a correct design? Are there any better alternatives? Should I be looking at Lazy instantiation Lazy<T> ?

  Read the article

• How to implement isValid correctly?

  - by Songo

  I'm trying to provide a mechanism for validating my object like this: class SomeObject { private $_inputString; private $_errors=array(); public function __construct($inputString) { $this->_inputString = $inputString; } public function getErrors() { return $this->_errors; } public function isValid() { $isValid = preg_match("/Some regular expression here/", $this->_inputString); if($isValid==0){ $this->_errors[]= 'Error was found in the input'; } return $isValid==1; } } Then when I'm testing my code I'm doing it like this: $obj = new SomeObject('an INVALID input string'); $isValid = $obj->isValid(); $errors=$obj->getErrors(); $this->assertFalse($isValid); $this->assertNotEmpty($errors); Now the test passes correctly, but I noticed a design problem here. What if the user called $obj->getErrors() before calling $obj->isValid()? The test will fail because the user has to validate the object first before checking the error resulting from validation. I think this way the user depends on a sequence of action to work properly which I think is a bad thing because it exposes the internal behaviour of the class. How do I solve this problem? Should I tell the user explicitly to validate first? Where do I mention that? Should I change the way I validate? Is there a better solution for this? UPDATE: I'm still developing the class so changes are easy and renaming functions and refactoring them is possible.

  Read the article

• Motivation for service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

  - by BornToCode

  I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such case. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - well, why not just import the BL.dll (and the DAL.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dll files, it might not be so 'neat', but is the all purpose of the service layer to prevent this? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

  Read the article

• Need ideas on how to give my levels structure

  - by akuritsu

  I am making an iOS game for a project at school. It is going to be a tiny bit like Fruit Ninja, as in it will have different things on the screen, and when you hit them, they die, and you get points. The trouble is that unlike Fruit Ninja, my game will have different types of sprites, all doing different things (moving different places, doing different things, etc). The one thing that is bad about having all of these sprites that do different things is that it is hard for them to look neat on the screen all together. I was planning on having a couple of different gamemodes: Time Trial You have 120 seconds to kill as many sprites as possible. Survival You have three lives, every time you try to hit a sprite and miss, you lose a life. ???? Whatever I think of. I am a rookie to game design in general, and I don't know the best way to make my game look good, and play well. I could have all of these sprites on the screen at the same time, or I could have them come in waves, for example 10 of sprite_a come on, and once they are killed, 10 of sprite_b come on, etc... Please give me your opinion about which one I should code. If you have any other suggestions for either a third gamemode, or a completely different way to make the levels, feel free to tell me.

  Read the article

• Override methods should call base method?

  - by Trevor Pilley

  I'm just running NDepend against some code that I have written and one of the warnings is Overrides of Method() should call base.Method(). The places this occurs are where I have a base class which has virtual properties and methods with default behaviour but which can be overridden by a class which inherits from the base class and doesn't call the overridden method. For example, in the base class I have a property defined like this: protected virtual char CloseQuote { get { return '"'; } } And then in an inheriting class which uses a different close quote: protected override char CloseQuote { get { return ']'; } } Not all classes which inherit from the base class use different quote characters hence my initial design. The alternatives I thought of were have get/set properties in the base class with the defaults set in the constructor: protected BaseClass() { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; set; } public InheritingClass() { this.CloseQuote = ']'; } Or make the base class require the values as constructor args: protected BaseClass(char closeQuote, ...) { this.CloseQuote = '"'; } protected char CloseQuote { get; private set; } public InheritingClass() base (closeQuote: ']', ...) { } Should I use virtual in a scenario where the base implementation may be replaced instead of extended or should I opt for one of the alternatives I thought of? If so, which would be preferable and why?

  Read the article

• How to pass dynamic information between a form and a service? [closed]

  - by qminator

  I have a design problem and hopefully the braintrust which is stack exchange can help. I have a generic form, which loads a dataset and displays it. It never has direct knowledge of what it contains but can pass it to a service for manipulation (via an Onclick event for example). However, the form might need to alter its behaviour based on the manipulation by the service. Example: The service realises this dataset requires sending of an email by the user and needs to send an instruction to the form to open up a mail form. My idea is thus: I'm thinking about passing back some type of key/name dictionary, filled with commands which the service requires. They could then be interpeted by the form without it need to reference something specific. Example: IF the service decides that the dataset needs to refresh it would send back a key/name pair, I might even be able to chain commands. Refreshing the dataset and sending a mail. Refresh / "Foo" Mail / "[email protected]" The form would reference an action explicitly (Refresh or Mail) but not the instructions themselves. Is this a valid idea or am I wasting time?

  Read the article

• Motivation for a service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

  - by BornToCode

  I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such scenario. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - why not just import the BL.DLL (and the dal.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dlls, it might not be so 'neat', but still less hassle than one more layer? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

  Read the article

• Did I Inadvertently Create a Mediator in my MVC?

  - by SoulBeaver

  I'm currently working on my first biggish project. It's a frontend facebook application that has, since last Tuesday, spanned some 6000-8000 LOC. I say this because I'm using the MVC, an architecture I have never rigidly enforced in any of my hobby projects. I read part of the PureMVC book, but I didn't quite grasp the concept of the Mediator. Since I didn't understand and didn't see the need for it, my project has yet to use a single mediator. Yesterday I went back to the design board because of some requirement changes and noticed that I could move all UI elements out of the View and into its own class. The View essentially only managed the lifetime of the UI and all events from the UI or Model. Technically, the View has now become a 'Mediator' between the Model and UI. Therefore, I realized today, I could just move all my UI stuff back into the View and create a mediator class that handles all events from the view and model. Is my understanding correct in thinking that I have devolved my View as it currently is (handling events from the Model and UI) into a Mediator and that the UI class is what should be the View?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >