Search Results

Search found 79791 results on 3192 pages for 'design problem'.

Page 138/3192 | < Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

  • Should I cache the data or hit the database?

    - by JD01
    I have not worked with any caching mechanisms and was wondering what my options are in the .net world for the following scenario. We basically have a a REST Service where the user passes an ID of a Category (think folder) and this category may have lots of sub categories and each of the sub categories could have 1000 of media containers (think file reference objects) which contain information about a file that may be on a NAS or SAN server (files are videos in this case). The relationship between these categories is stored in a database together with some permission rules and meta data about the sub categories. So from a UI perspective we have a lazy loaded tree control which is driven by the user by clicking on each sub folder (think of Windows explorer). Once they come to a URL of the video file, they then can watch the video. The number of users could grow into the 1000s and the sub categories and videos could be in the 10000s as the system grows. The question is should we carry on the way it is currently working where each request hits the database or should we think about caching the data? We are on using IIS 6/7 and Asp.net.

    Read the article

  • Is game development Subcontracted?

    - by Darv
    I was having a conversation with someone who believed that components of a games code where subcontracted out to programmers in different countries where it would be cheaper, then assembled by the local company. I understand that people often use pre-built engines but I would think that making the actual game would require people to work closely in the same studio. I couldn't find much clear information on this when I looked, does anyone know?

    Read the article

  • Methods of ordering function definitions in code

    - by xralf
    When I work on some programming project (usually command line application in Python with many switches), I'm usually creating about 30 and more functions. Most of the functions are in one file (except some helpers that I utilize in more projects). Some of the functions are called on particular switch (like -p or --print) but many functions do some helper computations, print operations or database operations because I don't want to main functions be too large. When I have an idea for a new functionality I often put new functions randomly to the file. Should I think more about it and place it to some particular place? Are there some methods for this?

    Read the article

  • Algorithmic Forecasting and Pattern Recognition

    - by Ryan King
    Say a user could enter project data into my software. Each project has 2 variables "size" and "work" and they're related but the relationship is not known. Is there a way to programmatically determine the relationship between the variables based on previous data and forecast the amount of work provided if only given the size of the project in the future? For Example, say the user had manually entered the following projects. Project 1 - Size:1, Work: 4 Project 2 - Size:2, Work: 7 Project 3 - Size:3, Work: 10 Project 4 - Size:4, Work: x What should I look into to be able to programmatically determine, that Work = Size*3+1 and therefor be able to say that x=13?

    Read the article

  • Looping 3D environment in shmups

    - by kamziro
    So I was watching Ikaruga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj23K8Ri68E And then raystorm: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ4V0G5ykAg After looking at their 3D backgrounds for a little bit, it appears that they use a lot of repeated segments. How would one start with the development with such systems? Would there be editors that can be used (or at least help) with creating the environments? Perhaps a 3D map with splines describing the path of the ship, as well as events on the splines?

    Read the article

  • What's My Problem? What's Your Problem?

    - by Jacek Ziabicki
    Software installers are not made for building demo environments. I can say this much after 12 years (on and off) of supporting my fellow sales consultants with environments for software demonstrations. When we release software, we include installation programs and procedures that are designed for use by our clients – to build a production environment and a limited number of testing, training and development environments. Different Objectives Your priorities when building an environment for client use vs. building a demo environment are very different. In a production environment, security, stability, and performance concerns are paramount. These environments are built on a specific server and rarely, if ever, moved to a different server or different network address. There is typically just one application running on a particular server (physical or virtual). Once built, the environment will be used for months or years at a time. Because of security considerations, the installation program wants to make these environments very specific to the organization using the software and the use case, encoding a fully qualified name of the server, or even the IP address on the network, in the configuration. So you either go through the installation procedure for each environment, or learn how to clone and reconfigure the software as a separate instance to build all your non-production environments. This may not matter much if the installation is as simple as clicking on the Setup program. But for enterprise applications, you have a number of configuration settings that you need to get just right – so whether you are installing from scratch or reconfiguring an existing installation, this requires both time and expertise in the particular piece of software. If you need a setup of several applications that are integrated to talk to one another, it is a whole new level of complexity. Now you need the expertise in all of the applications involved (plus the supporting technology products), and in addition to making each application work, you also have to configure the integration endpoints. Each application needs the URLs and credentials to call the integration layer, and the integration must be able to call each application. Then you have to make sure that each app has the right data so a business process initiated in one application can continue in the next. And, you will need to check that each application has the correct version and patch level for the integration to work. When building demo environments, your #1 concern is agility. If you can get away with a small number of long-running environments, you are lucky. More likely, you may get a request for a dedicated environment for a demonstration that is two weeks away: how quickly can you make this available so we still have the time to build the client-specific data? We are running a hands-on workshop next month, and we’ll need 15 instances of application X environment so each student can have a separate server for the exercises. We cannot connect to our data center from the client site, the client’s security policy won’t allow our VPN to go through – so we need a portable environment that we can bring with us. Our consultants need to be able to work at the hotel, airport, and the airplane, so we really want an environment that can run on a laptop. The client will need two playpen environments running in the cloud, accessible from their network, for a series of workshops that start two weeks from now. We have seen all of these scenarios and more. Here you would be much better served by a generic installation that would be easy to clone. Welcome to the Wonder Machine The reason I started this blog is to share a particular design of a demo environment, a special way to install software, that can address the above requirements, even for integrated setups. This design was created by a team at Oracle Utilities Global Business Unit, and we are using this setup for most of our demo environments. In a bout of modesty we called it the Wonder Machine. Over the next few posts – think of it as a novel in parts – I will tell you about the big idea, how it was implemented and what you can do with it. After we have laid down the groundwork, I would like to share some tips and tricks for users of our Wonder Machine implementation, as well as things I am learning about building portable, cloneable environments. The Wonder Machine is by no means a closed specification, it is under active development! I am hoping this blog will be of interest to two groups of readers – the users of the Wonder Machine we have built at Oracle Utilities, who want to get the most out of their demo environments and be able to reconfigure it to their needs – and to people who need to build environments for demonstration, testing, training, development and would like to make them cloneable and portable to maximize the reuse of their effort. Surely we are not the only ones facing this problem? If you can think of a better way to solve it, or if you can help us improve on our concept, I will appreciate your comments!

    Read the article

  • What should a game have in order to keep humans playing it?

    - by Adam Davis
    In many entertainment professions there suggestions, loose rules, or general frameworks one follows that appeal to humans in one way or another. For instance, many movies and books follow the monomyth. In video games I find many types of games that attract people in different ways. Some are addicted to facebook gem matching games. Others can't get enough of FPS games. Once in awhile, though, you find a game that seems to transcend stereotypes and appeals almost immediately to everyone that plays it. For instance, Plants Versus Zombies seems to have a very, very large demographic of players. There are other games similar in reach. I'm curious what books, blogs, etc there are that explore these game types and styles, and tries to suss out one or more popular frameworks/styles that satisfy people, while keeping them coming back for more.

    Read the article

  • Go/Obj-C style interfaces with ability to extend compiled objects after initial release

    - by Skrylar
    I have a conceptual model for an object system which involves combining Go/Obj-C interfaces/protocols with being able to add virtual methods from any unit, not just the one which defines a class. The idea of this is to allow Ruby-ish open classes so you can take a minimalist approach to library development, and attach on small pieces of functionality as is actually needed by the whole program. Implementation of this involves a table of methods marked virtual in an RTTI table, which system functions are allowed to add to during module initialization. Upon typecasting an object to an interface, a Go-style lookup is done to create a vtable for that particular mapping and pass it off so you can have comparable performance to C/C++. In this case, methods may be added /afterwards/ which were not previously known and these new methods allow newer interfaces to be satisfied; while I like this idea because it seems like it would be very flexible (disregarding the potential for spaghetti code, which can happen with just about any model you use regardless). By wrapping the system calls for binding methods up in a set of clean C-compatible calls, one would also be able to integrate code with shared libraries and retain a decent amount of performance (Go does not do shared linking, and Objective-C does a dynamic lookup on each call.) Is there a valid use-case for this model that would make it worth the extra background plumbing? As much as this Dylan-style extensibility would be nice to have access to, I can't quite bring myself to a use case that would justify the overhead other than "it could make some kinds of code more extensible in future scenarios."

    Read the article

  • Keep user and user profile in different tables?

    - by Andrey
    I have seen in a couple of projects that developers prefer to keep essential user info in one table (email/login, password hash, screen name) and rest of the non essential user profile in another (creation date, country, etc). By non-essential I mean that this data is needed only occasionally. Obvious benefit is that if you are using ORM querying less fields is obviously good. But then you can have two entities mapped to same table and this will save you from querying stuff you don't need (while being more convenient). Does anybody know any other advantage of keeping these things in two tables?

    Read the article

  • Presenting Loading Data Warehouse Partitions with SSIS 2012 at SQL Saturday DC!

    - by andyleonard
    Join Darryll Petrancuri and me as we present Loading Data Warehouse Partitions with SSIS 2012 Saturday 8 Dec 2012 at SQL Saturday 173 in DC ! SQL Server 2012 table partitions offer powerful Big Data solutions to the Data Warehouse ETL Developer. In this presentation, Darryll Petrancuri and Andy Leonard demonstrate one approach to loading partitioned tables and managing the partitions using SSIS 2012, and reporting partition metrics using SSRS 2012. Objectives A practical solution for loading Big...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make an iterator that is aware of its own end

    - by aaronman
    For some background of why I am asking this question here is an example. In python the method chain chains an arbitrary number of ranges together and makes them into one without making copies. Here is a link in case you don't understand it. I decided I would implement chain in c++ using variadic templates. As far as I can tell the only way to make an iterator for chain that will successfully go to the next container is for each iterator to to know about the end of the container (I thought of a sort of hack in where when != is called against the end it will know to go to the next container, but the first way seemed easier and safer and more versatile). My question is if there is anything inherently wrong with an iterator knowing about its own end, my code is in c++ but this can be language agnostic since many languages have iterators. #ifndef CHAIN_HPP #define CHAIN_HPP #include "iterator_range.hpp" namespace iter { template <typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter; template <typename Container> struct chain_iter<Container> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end;//never really used but kept it for consistency public: chain_iter(Container & container, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()),end(container.end()) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { ++begin; return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { return *begin; } bool operator!=(const chain_iter & rhs) const{ return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename Container, typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter<Container,Containers...> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end; bool end_reached = false; chain_iter<Containers...> next_iter; public: chain_iter(Container & container, Containers& ... rest, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()), end(container.end()), next_iter(rest...,is_end) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { if (begin == end) { ++next_iter; } else { ++begin; } return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { if (begin == end) { return *next_iter; } else { return *begin; } } bool operator !=(const chain_iter & rhs) const { if (begin == end) { return this->next_iter != rhs.next_iter; } else return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename ... Containers> iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>> chain(Containers& ... containers) { auto begin = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...); auto end = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...,true); return iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>>(begin,end); } } #endif //CHAIN_HPP

    Read the article

  • Game ideas for a platformer

    - by user5925
    I have created a platformer which currently has the features listed below. I would greatly appreciate any further ideas which I could implement! (I don't play a lot of games which is why I require help) -- Walking/jumping/movement -- player can shoot lasers -- enemies also walk, fly, and shoot lasers -- water (you can swim in this) -- mud (slows you down on contact, and stops you from jumping) -- ladders -- damage when falling from a large height, unless falling into water -- moving platforms -- springboards (jumping on them shoot you into the air) -- growing platforms (allow you to reach new places) -- key and door system -- gem and coin collection system

    Read the article

  • What cars on roads game engines are there?

    - by David Thielen
    What game engines are there that support laying out a map of roads and handle vehicle movement on the roads. Something similar to the basic functionality in Transport Tycoon/Locomotion. I don't care about looks (although prettier is better) and top down or isometric is fine. I just need a simple way to create maps and move cars on it. And preferably the cars do take time to speed up and slow down as they go from stopped to full speed. Prefer in Windows (any API in Windows). I also prefer a free engine as this is just for internal use. I have found CarDriving 2D - does anyone know if it works well?

    Read the article

  • How do we know to favour composition over generalisation is always the right choice?

    - by Carnotaurus
    Whether an object physically exists or not, we can choose to model it in different ways. We could arbitarily use generalisation or composition in many cases. However, the GoF principle of "favour composition over generalisation [sic]" guides us to use composition. So, when we model, for example, a line then we create a class that contains two members PointA and PointB of the type Point (composition) instead of extending Point (generalisation). This is just a simplified example of how we can arbitarily choose composition or inheritance to model, despite that objects are usually much more complex. How do we know that this is the right choice? It matters at least because there could be a ton of refactoring to do if it is wrong?

    Read the article

  • Need advice for approach for a web-based app that loads excel worksheet but exposes only the charts

    - by John
    I'm looking for suggestions on the Visual Studio approach to take for a web application that is in the conceptual stage. My environment has a lot of tools: Windows Server 2008 R2 Standard 64bit Visual Studio 2010 Professional Edition Sharepoint 2010 Server Enterprise Edition SQL Server 2008 R2 Office 2010 Professional I know I will need this app to retrieve data from a database (or a web service - not sure exactly at this point). The data needs to be placed in an Excel workbook dynamically. The app will need to have a nice user interface (standard web controls - perhaps with some Javascript effects). The Excel ribbon and worksheet grid will need to be hidden. Some web control(s) will cause the Excel chart(s) to be rendered. I am thinking this sounds like Visual Studio Tools for Office (VSTO) so as to leverage .Net and hide Excel. Can you offer suggestions regarding: One ASP.Net Web App Project One Class Library Project for Excel or perhaps which one of the several different Excel 2010 project types (addin, template, document) Would Excel Services for Sharepoint be useful (or required) ? I am feeling a little overwhelmed with so many choices at this early stage of conceptualizing the app. Can you suggest some ideas for this sort of thing? Also, I am a bit more experienced with C# but I've read VB.Net is better for work with the Excel object model. What are general advises with regard to tool choice and overall approach tradeoffs?

    Read the article

  • Service Layer - how broad should it be, and should it be used also on the local application?

    - by BornToCode
    Background: I need to build a main application with some operations (CRUD and more) (-in winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (-in webforms). I understood that using service layer is the best approach here. If I understood correctly the service should be calling the function on the BL layer (correct me if I'm wrong) The dilemma: In my main winform UI - should I call the functions from the BL, or from the service? (please explain why) Should I create a service for every single function on the BL even if I need some of the functions only in one UI? for example - should I create services for all the CRUD operations, even though I need to re-use only update operation in the webform? YOUR HELP IS MUCH APPRECIATED

    Read the article

  • Philosophy behind the memento pattern

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

    Read the article

  • Techniques for separating game model from presentation

    - by liortal
    I am creating a simple 2D game using XNA. The elements that make up the game world are what i refer to as the "model". For instance, in a board game, i would have a GameBoard class that stores information about the board. This information could be things such as: Location Size Details about cells on the board (occupied/not occupied) etc This object should either know how to draw itself, or describe how to draw itself to some other entity (renderer) in order to be displayed. I believe that since the board only contains the data+logic for things regarding it or cells on it, it should not provide the logic of how to draw things (separation of concerns). How can i achieve a good partitioning and easily allow some other entity to draw it properly? My motivations for doing so are: Allow multiple "implementations" of presentation for a single game entity Easier porting to other environments where the presentation code is not available (for example - porting my code to Unity or other game technology that does not rely on XNA).

    Read the article

  • How URL Redirection affects SEO?

    - by Costa
    The following paragraph is from SEO Google Guide Google is good at crawling all types of URL structures, even if they're quite complex, but spending the time to make your URLs as simple as possible for both users and search engines can help. Some webmasters try to achieve this by rewriting their dynamic URLs to static ones; while Google is fine with this, we'd like to note that this is an advanced procedure and if done incorrectly, could cause crawling issues with your site. What makes URL re-writing implementation incorrect for GoogleBot? I am using Asp.net 3.5 framework. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Use Case Diagrams - should I create a diagram just for a view business rule?

    - by Periback
    I'm modeling a UCD where I have two actors ( a content producer and a developer).. the content producer is going to create and specify details of a storyboard functionality, and the other actor (developer) will only be able to view this storyboard ( he'll log in the application and read the storyboard to start developing what it says, outside the application..) I'm working on the specification of this storyboard functionality and I'd like to know it would be like a best-practice if I describe something like " actor- developer", "UCD - read scenes of storyboard" . This is the specification of an application I developed for my thesis and they asked me to add some specification...

    Read the article

  • Making Class Diagram for MVC Pattern Project

    - by iMohammad
    I have a question about making a class diagram for an MVC based college senior project. If we have 2 actors of users in my system, lets say Undergrad and Graduate students are the children of abstract class called User. (Generalisation) Each actor has his own features. My question, in such case, do we need to have these two actors in separate classes which inherits from the abstract class User? even though, I'm going to implement them as roles using one Model called User Model ? I think you can see my confusion here. I code using MVC pattern, but I've never made a class diagram for this pattern. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Constructor should generally not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method can be an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • When would you want two references to the same object?

    - by HCBPshenanigans
    In Java specifically, but likely in other languages as well; When would it be useful to have two references to the same object? Example: Dog a = new Dog(); Dob b = a; Is there a situation where this would be useful? Why would this be a preferred solution to using a whenever you want to interact with the object represented by a? Edit: Can I just say that all of your dog related examples are Delightful!

    Read the article

  • Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

    - by Ilian Pinzon
    This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >