Search Results

Search found 14545 results on 582 pages for 'design patterns'.

Page 150/582 | < Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >

  • How can I designed multi-threaded application for larger user base

    - by rokonoid
    Here's my scenario, I need to develop a scalable application. My user base may be over 100K, every user has 10 or more small tasks. Tasks check every minute with a third party application through web services, retrieving data which is written in the database, then the data is forwarded to it's original destination. So here's the processing of a small task: while(true){ Boolean isNewInformationAvailable = checkWhetherInformationIsAvailableOrNot(); If(isNewInformationAvailable ==true){ fetchTheData(); writeToDatabase(); findTheDestination(); deliverTheData(); isAvailable =false; } } Here is the question: as the application is large, how should I approach designing this. I'm going to use Java to write it. Should I use concurrency, and how would you manage the concurrency?

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of storing xml in a relational database?

    - by Chris
    I was poking around the AdventureWorks database today and I noticed that a number of tables (HumanResources.JobCandidate and Sales.Individual for example) have a column which is storing xml data. What I would to know is, what is the advantage of storing basically a database table row's worth of data in another table's column? Doesn't this make it difficult to query off of this information? Or is the assumption that the data won't need to be queried and just needs to be stored?

    Read the article

  • What is a normalized Vector?

    - by draiden
    Can someone explain the following code? I need to learn what each part means so I can turn it into enemy movement in a space shoot-em-up Vec2d playerPos; Vec2d direction; // always normalized float velocity; I get the above is naming two 2d Vector objects, and creating a variable called velocity. I'm not sure what the normalized comment is about, though. update() { direction = normalize(playerPos - enemyPos); playerPos = playerPos + direction * velocity; }

    Read the article

  • Designing a user-defined list to be stored in a relational database - Should I include user index?

    - by Zaemz
    By index, I mean, as the user creates the list, each item receives an integer index for its place in that particular list. Since there will be a table of ListItems, I'd prefer to avoid using the name "Index" for the field. Then I was thinking - should I even include the list index in the database? I figured I would because the list would be created in the same fashion every time, then. Or I could order the list for the user based on its actual primary key, since the list items are created in succession anyway... What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Should single purpose utility app use a class

    - by jmoreno
    When writing a small utility app, that does just one thing, should that one thing be encapsulated in a seperate class, or just let it be part of whatever class/module is used to start the application? I.e. Main would consist of 2 or three lines calling the constructor and then the DoIt methods, nothing else. Or should Main be the DoIt method, with whatever functions it needs added to the main class? Asking because I want to get some alternative perspective, but couldn't find a similar question. If my google-fu is bad and there's a dup, please close.

    Read the article

  • Integrating with a payment provider; Proper and robust OOP approach

    - by ExternalUse
    History We are currently using a so called redirect model for our online payments (where you send the payer to a payment gateway, where he inputs his payment details - the gateway will then return him to a success/failure callback page). That's easy and straight-forward, but unfortunately quite inconvenient and at times confusing for our customers (leaving the site, changing their credit card details with an additional login on another site etc). Intention & Problem description We are now intending to switch to an integrated approach using an exchange of XML requests and responses. My problem is on how to cater with all (or rather most) of the things that may happen during processing - bearing in mind that normally simplicity is robust whereas complexity is fragile. Examples User abort: The user inputs Credit Card details and hits submit. An XML message to the provider's gateway is sent and waiting for response. The user hits "stop" in his browser or closes the window. ignore_user_abort() in PHP may be an option - but is that reliable? might it be better to redirect the user to a "please wait"-page, that in turn opens an AJAX or other request to the actual processor that does not rely on the connection? Database goes away sounds over-complicated, but with e.g. a webserver in the States and a DB in the UK, it has happened and will happen again: User clicks together his order, payment request has been sent to the provider but the response cannot be stored in the database. What approach could I use, using PHP to sort of start an SQL like "Transaction" that only at the very end gets committed or rolled back, depending on the individual steps? Should then neither commit or roll back have happened, I could sort of "lock" the user to prevent him from paying again or to improperly account for payments - but how? And what else do I need to consider technically? None of the integration examples of e.g. Worldpay, Realex or SagePay offer any insight, and neither Google or my search terms were good enough to find somebody else's thoughts on this. Thank you very much for any insight on how you would approach this!

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist or what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question how this can be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the sortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structrue should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exist in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Pending and Approval process

    - by zen
    So let's say I have a DB table with 8 columns, one is a unique auto-incrementing used as ID. So I have a page that pulls in the info for each row based on query string ID. I want to give my users the ability to propose changes. Kinda like a wiki setup. So I was thinking I should just have another duplicate table or maybe database altogether (without the auto-incrementing column and maybe with a date edited column) that keeps all proposed changes in queue and then when I approve them, the script can move the row from the proposed DB to the real DB. Does this sound good or is there a better process for this?

    Read the article

  • What is the most concise, unambiguous syntax for operator associated methods (for overloading etc.) that doesn't pollute the namespace?

    - by Doug Treadwell
    Python tends to add double underscores before its built-in or overloadable operator methods, like __add(), whereas C++ requires declaring overloaded operators as operator + (Thing& thing) { /* code */ } for example. Personally I like the operator syntax because it seems to be more explicit and keeps these operator overloading methods separated from other methods without introducing weird prefix notation. What are your thoughts? Also, what about the case of built-in methods that are needed for the programming language to work properly? Is name mangling (like adding __ prefix or sys or something) the best solution here? What do you think about having another type of method declaration, like ... "system method" for lack of creativity at the moment. So there would be two kinds of declarations: int method_name() { ... } system int method_name() { ... } ... and the call would need to be different to distinguish between them. obj.method_name(); vs obj:method_name(); perhaps, assuming a language where : can be unambiguously used in this situation. obj.method_name() vs obj.(system method_name)() Sure, the latter is ugly, but the idea is to make the common case simple and system stuff should be kept out of the way. Maybe the Objective-C notation of method calls? [obj method_name]? Are there more alternatives? Please make suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Set modified date = created date or null on record creation?

    - by User
    I've been following the convention of adding created and modified columns to most of my database tables. I also have been leaving the modified column as null on record creation and only setting a value on actual modification. The other alternative is to set the modified date to be equal to created date on record creation. I've been doing it the former way but I recent ran into one con which is seriously making me think of switching. I needed to set a database cache dependency to find out if any existing data has been changed or new data added. Instead of being able to do the following: SELECT MAX(modified) FROM customer I have to do this: SELECT GREATEST(MAX(created), MAX(modified)) FROM customer The negative being that it's a more complicated query and slower. Another thing is in file systems I believe they usually use the second convention of setting modified date = created date on creation. What are the pros and cons of the different methods? That is, what are the issues to consider?

    Read the article

  • Player rewards in games where you normally have nothing to purchase

    - by PeterK
    In many games there are rewards such as gold coins, points, etc. When these rewards can be used to purchase in-game items, it motivates the player to keep playing. Let's say we have an online game, poker, Yatzy etc. What type of reward would keep the players playing if there are few in-game items available to buy, or none at all? What I am looking for is a reward system that entices the players to play more in a game environment where there isn't that much to purchase. For example, there isn't much to buy in a poker or Yatzy game with the gold you win. I guess having some titles that are added to the userid is one way, or maybe purchasing a logo for the id... A leaderboard is another. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to write the compiler of a programming language with that language itself [closed]

    - by tugberk
    Possible Duplicate: How could the first C++ compiler be written in C++? You probably heard that Microsoft released a new language called TypeScript which is a the typed superset of JavaScript. The most interesting thing that makes me wonder is the fact that its compiler writen in TypeScript itself. Call me ignorant but I really couldn't figure out in my head how that is possible. This is just like chicken and egg problem in my head because there is no compiler to compile TypeScript's compiler in the first place. How is it possible to write a compiler of the compiler of a programming language with that language?

    Read the article

  • Are null references really a bad thing?

    - by Tim Goodman
    I've heard it said that the inclusion of null references in programming languages is the "billion dollar mistake". But why? Sure, they can cause NullReferenceExceptions, but so what? Any element of the language can be a source of errors if used improperly. And what's the alternative? I suppose instead of saying this: Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman"); // returns null if not found if (c != null) { Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } You could say this: if (Customer.ExistsWithLastName("Goodman")) { Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman") // throws error if not found Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } But how is that better? Either way, if you forget to check that the customer exists, you get an exception. I suppose that a CustomerNotFoundException is a bit easier to debug than a NullReferenceException by virtue of being more descriptive. Is that all there is to it?

    Read the article

  • Using Copyrighted Images

    - by TMP
    I was thinking about developing a sidescrolling platformer very similar to an old Mario and Luigi game for NES. To start out I was thinking about taking the images from a site like this: http://www.mariouniverse.com/sprites/nes/smb3 Which clearly states a copyright. I was wondering how far I am allowed to take these images. I figure I'm probably allowed to use it for personal development, but what if I publish the game as an exe file and send it to some friends? I figured a definite no-no would be selling the game with the copyrighted images included. A secondary question would be whether or not I would be allowed to modify them slightly and then call them my own.

    Read the article

  • Does an inventory limit in an MMORPG make sense?

    - by Philipp
    I am currently developing a simple 2d MMORPG. My current focus is the inventory system. I am currently wondering if I should implement a limit on what a player character can carry. Either in form of a maximum weight, a limited number of inventory slots, or a combination of both. Almost every MMORPG I ever played limits inventory space. But plausibility aside, is this really necessary from a gameplay point of view? Maybe it would in fact improve the game experience when I just let the players carry as much stuff as they want. tl;dr: What is the game development rationale behind limiting carrying capacity of player characters?

    Read the article

  • What to do if I hate C++ header files?

    - by BlaXpirit
    I was always confused about header files. They are so strange: you include .h file which doesn't include .cpp but .cpp are somehow compiled too. NOTE: I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT THE HEADERS, PLEASE DON'T TELL ME I'M STUPID OR SHOULD USE OTHER LANGUAGE Recently I joined a team project, and of course, both .h and .cpp are used. I understand that this is very important, but I can't live with copy-pasting every function declaration in each of multiple classes we have. How do I handle the 2-file convention efficiently? Are there any tools to help with that, or automatically change one file that looks like example below to .h and .cpp? (specifically for MS VC++ 2010) class A { ... Type f(Type a,Type b) { //implementation here, not in another file! } ... }; Type f(Type a) { //implementation here } ...

    Read the article

  • Should I make up my own HTTP status codes? (a la Twitter 420: Enhance Your Calm)

    - by Max Bucknell
    I'm currently implementing an HTTP API, my first ever. I've been spending a lot of time looking at the Wikipedia page for HTTP status codes, because I'm determined to implement the right codes for the right situations. Listed on that page is a code with number 420, which is a custom code that Twitter used to use for rate limiting. There is already a code for rate limiting, though. It's 429. This led me to wonder why they would set a custom one, when there is already a use case. Is that just being cute? And if so, then which circumstances would make it acceptable to return a different status code, and what, if any problems may clients have with it? I read somewhere that Mozilla doesn't implement the joke 418: I’m a teapot response, which makes me think that clients choose which status codes they implement. If that's true, then I can imagine Twitter's funny little enhance your calm code being problematic. Unless I'm mistaken, and we can appropriate any code number to mean whatever we like, and that only convention dictates that 404 means not found, and 429 means take it easy.

    Read the article

  • Should I always encapsulate an internal data structure entirely?

    - by Prog
    Please consider this class: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThings(){ return things; } } This class exposes the array it uses to store data, to any client code interested. I did this in an app I'm working on. I had a ChordProgression class that stores a sequence of Chords (and does some other things). It had a Chord[] getChords() method that returned the array of chords. When the data structure had to change (from an array to an ArrayList), all client code broke. This made me think - maybe the following approach is better: class ClassA{ private Thing[] things; // stores data // stuff omitted public Thing[] getThing(int index){ return things[index]; } public int getDataSize(){ return things.length; } public void setThing(int index, Thing thing){ things[index] = thing; } } Instead of exposing the data structure itself, all of the operations offered by the data structure are now offered directly by the class enclosing it, using public methods that delegate to the data structure. When the data structure changes, only these methods have to change - but after they do, all client code still works. Note that collections more complex than arrays might require the enclosing class to implement even more than three methods just to access the internal data structure. Is this approach common? What do you think of this? What downsides does it have other? Is it reasonable to have the enclosing class implement at least three public methods just to delegate to the inner data structure?

    Read the article

  • Do functional generics exist and what is the correct name for them if they do?

    - by voroninp
    Consider the following generic class: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Here EntityType unambiguously defines TEntityKeyType. So it would be nice to have some kind of types' map: public class EntityChangeInfo<EntityType,TEntityKey> with map < [ EntityType : Person -> TEntityKeyType : int] [ EntityType : Car -> TEntityKeyType : CarIdType ]> { ChangeTypeEnum ChangeType {get;} TEntityKeyType EntityKey {get;} } Another one example is: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} } The reasonable question: how can this be interpreted by the compiler? Well, for me it is just the shortcut for two structurally similar classes: public sealed class Foo<Person> { string Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... double PropN {get;set;} } public sealed class Foo<Car> { int Prop1 {get;set;} int Prop2 {get;set;} ... Price PropN {get;set;} } But besides this we could imaging some update of the Foo<>: public class Foo<TIn> with map < [TIn : Person -> TOut1 : string, TOut2 : int, ..., TOutN : double ] [TIn : Car -> TOut1 : int, TOut2 :int, ..., TOutN : Price ] > { TOut1 Prop1 {get;set;} TOut2 Prop2 {get;set;} ... TOutN PropN {get;set;} public override string ToString() { return string.Format("prop1={0}, prop2={1},...propN={N-1}, Prop1, Prop2,...,PropN); } } This all can seem quite superficial but the idea came when I was designing the messages for our system. The very first class. Many messages with the same structure should be discriminated by the EntityType. So the question is whether such construct exists in any programming language?

    Read the article

  • Should static parameters in an API be part of each method?

    - by jschoen
    I am currently creating a library that is a wrapper for an online API. The obvious end goal is to make it as easy for others to use as possible. As such I am trying to determine the best approach when it comes to common parameters for the API. In my current situation there are 3 (consumer key, consumer secret, and and authorization token). They are essentially needed in every API call. My question is should I make these 3 parameters required for each method or is there a better way. I see my current options as being: Place the parameters in each method call public ApiObject callMethod(String consumerKey, String consumerSecret, String token, ...) This one seems reasonable, but seems awfully repetitive to me. Create a singleton class that the user must initialize before calling any api methods. This seems wrong, and would essentially limit them to accessing one account at a time via the API (which may be reasonable, I dunno). Make them place them in a properties file in their project. That way I can load the properties that way and store them. This seems similar to the singleton to me, but they would not have to explicitly call something to initialize these values. Is there another option I am not seeing, or a more common practice in this situation that I should be following?

    Read the article

  • Best way to manage a changelog

    - by Gnial0id
    I'm currently developing a WinForm application. In order to inform the client about the improvements and corrections made during the last version, I would like to manage and display a changelog. I mostly found existing changelog on website (the term changelog is pretty used) or explanation on how to manage the release numbers, which I don't care. So, these are my questions: Is there a good practice in changelog management (using XML, pure text in the app, etc.) in a desktop application ? What is the best way to display it (external website, inside the winform application) ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Architecting persistence (and other internal systems). Interfaces, composition, pure inheritance or centralization?

    - by Vandell
    Suppose that you need to implement persistence, I think that you're generally limited to four options (correct me if I'm wrong, please) Each persistant class: Should implement an interface (IPersistent) Contains a 'persist-me' object that is a specialized object (or class) that's made only to be used the class that contains it. Inherit from Persistent (a base class) Or you can create a gigantic class (or package) called Database and make your persistence logic there. What are the advantages and problems that can come from each of one? In a small (5kloc) and algorithmically (or organisationally) simple app what is probably the best option?

    Read the article

  • Repository query conditions, dependencies and DRY

    - by vFragosop
    To keep it simple, let's suppose an application which has Accounts and Users. Each account may have any number of users. There's also 3 consumers of UserRepository: An admin interface which may list all users Public front-end which may list all users An account authenticated API which should only list it's own users Assuming UserRepository is something like this: class UsersRepository extends DatabaseAbstraction { private function query() { return $this->database()->select('users.*'); } public function getAll() { return $this->query()->exec(); } // IMPORTANT: // Tons of other methods for searching, filtering, // joining of other tables, ordering and such... } Keeping in mind the comment above, and the necessity to abstract user querying conditions, How should I handle querying of users filtering by account_id? I can picture three possible roads: 1. Should I create an AccountUsersRepository? class AccountUsersRepository extends UserRepository { public function __construct(Account $account) { $this->account = $account; } private function query() { return parent::query() ->where('account_id', '=', $this->account->id); } } This has the advantage of reducing the duplication of UsersRepository methods, but doesn't quite fit into anything I've read about DDD so far (I'm rookie by the way) 2. Should I put it as a method on AccountsRepository? class AccountsRepository extends DatabaseAbstraction { public function getAccountUsers(Account $account) { return $this->database() ->select('users.*') ->where('account_id', '=', $account->id) ->exec(); } } This requires the duplication of all UserRepository methods and may need another UserQuery layer, that implements those querying logic on chainable way. 3. Should I query UserRepository from within my account entity? class Account extends Entity { public function getUsers() { return UserRepository::findByAccountId($this->id); } } This feels more like an aggregate root for me, but introduces dependency of UserRepository on Account entity, which may violate a few principles. 4. Or am I missing the point completely? Maybe there's an even better solution? Footnotes: Besides permissions being a Service concern, in my understanding, they shouldn't implement SQL query but leave that to repositories since those may not even be SQL driven.

    Read the article

  • Draw "vision cone" / targetting element onto game world

    - by gkimsey
    I'm wanting to indicate various things using a "pie slice" sort of shape as below. Similar to vision cones in stealth game minimaps, or targetting indicators in RTS type games for frontal area attacks. Something generic enough to be used for both would be ideal. I need to be able to procedurally (and efficiently) change things like the slice width and length, color, transparency, position in the world, etc. For my particular situation, there's no concern with elevation, funky terrain, or really any third axis at all as far as this element is concerned. I have two first inclinations on how to accomplish this: 1) Manually generate the vertices for a main triangle, (possibly two, superimposed to get the border effect), a handful more to approximate the arc at the end, and roll it into a mesh. 2) Use some sort of 2D drawing library to create a circle and mask it off at the right angles, render to texture, and use that. For reference, I have some experience with Ogre3D, but I'm not attached to it as this is a mostly academic pursuit at the moment. Other technologies that might be better at accomplishing this are more than welcome. Finally, I'm kind of curious about how to do a "flashlight" or similar 3D effect that could produce the same result, but on all surfaces in the lit area.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >