Search Results

Search found 71115 results on 2845 pages for 'file patterns'.

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

Page 151/2845 | < Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >

  • Architecting ASP.net MVC App to use repositories and services

    - by zaladane
    Hello, I recently started reading about ASP.net MVC and after getting excited about the concept, i started to migrate all my webform project to MVC but i am having a hard time keeping my controller skinny even after following all the good advices out there (or maybe i just don't get it ... ). The website i deal with has Articles, Videos, Quotes ... and each of these entities have categories, comments, images that can be associated with it. I am using Linq to sql for database operations and for each of these Entities, i have a Repository, and for each repository, i create a service to be used in the controller. so i have - ArticleRepository ArticleCategoryRepository ArticleCommentRepository and the corresponding service ArticleService ArticleCategoryService ... you see the picture. The problem i have is that i have one controller for article,category and comment because i thought that having ArticleController handle all of that might make sense, but now i have to pass all of the services needed to the Controller constructor. So i would like to know what it is that i am doing wrong. Are my services not designed properly? should i create Bigger service to encapsulate smaller services and use them in my controller? or should i have an articleCategory Controller and an articleComment Controller? A page viewed by the user is made of all of that, thee article to be viewed,the comments associated with it, a listing of the categories to witch it applies ... how can i efficiently break down the controller to keep it "skinny" and solve my headache? Thank you! I hope my question is not too long to be read ...

    Read the article

  • Generating a URL pattern when provided a set of 5 or so URLs

    - by ryan
    Provided with a set of URLs, I need to generate a pattern, For example: http://www.buy.com/prod/disney-s-star-struck/q/loc/109/213724402.html http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-f2380-23-widescreen-1080p-lcd-monitor-150-000-1-dc-8ms-1920-x/q/loc/101/211249863.html http://www.buy.com/prod/panasonic-nnh765wf-microwave-oven-countertop-1-6-ft-1250w-panasonic/q/loc/66357/202045865.html http://www.buy.com/prod/escape-by-calvin-klein-for-women-3-4-oz-edp-spray/q/loc/66740/211210860.html http://www.buy.com/prod/v-touch-8gb-mp3-mp4-2-8-touch-screen-2mp-camera-expandable-minisd-w/q/loc/111/211402014.html Pattern is http://www.buy.com/prod/[^~]/q/loc/[^~].html

    Read the article

  • Where UnityContainerElement in Unity 2?

    - by TheAbdalla
    I was in Unity 1.2, use the following code: UnityConfigurationSection UnitySection = (UnityConfigurationSection)ConfigurationManager.GetSection("Unity"); Dictionary<string, IUnityContainer> Containers = new Dictionary<string, IUnityContainer>(); foreach (UnityContainerElement element in UnitySection.Containers) { IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer(); Containers.Add(element.Name, container); element.Configure(Containers[element.Name]); } but, I couldn't do so in the Unity 2.0 beta2, because The class 'UnityContainerElement' does not exist in Unity 2 beta2. How can I do this in the new version?

    Read the article

  • MVVM pattern: ViewModel updates after Model server roundtrip

    - by Pavel Savara
    I have stateless services and anemic domain objects on server side. Model between server and client is POCO DTO. The client should become MVVM. The model could be graph of about 100 instances of 20 different classes. The client editor contains diverse tab-pages all of them live-connected to model/viewmodel. My problem is how to propagate changes after server round-trip nice way. It's quite easy to propagate changes from ViewModel to DTO. For way back it would be possible to throw away old DTO and replace it whole with new one, but it will cause lot of redrawing for lists/DataTemplates. I could gather the server side changes and transmit them to client side. But the names of fields changed would be domain/DTO specific, not ViewModel specific. And the mapping seems nontrivial to me. If I should do it imperative way after round-trip, it would break SOC/modularity of viewModels. I'm thinking about some kind of mapping rule engine, something like automappper or emit mapper. But it solves just very plain use-cases. I don't see how it would map/propagate/convert adding items to list or removal. How to identify instances in collections so it could merge values to existing instances. As well it should propagate validation/error info. Maybe I should implement INotifyPropertyChanged on DTO and try to replay server side events on it ? And then bind ViewModel to it ? Would binding solve the problems with collection merges nice way ? Is EventAgregator from PRISM useful for that ? Is there any event record-replay component ? Is there better client side pattern for architecture with server side logic ?

    Read the article

  • Rails Full Engine using a Full Engine

    - by SirLenz0rlot
    I've got this full rails engine Foo with functionality X. I want to make another engine, engine Bar, that is pretty much the same, but override funcitonality x with y. (it basically does the same, but a few controller actions and views are differently implemented). (I might split this later in several mountable engines, but for now, this will be the setup: project Baz, using engine Bar, which uses engine Foo) I would like to know if there are any pitfalls. It doesn't seem like a pattern that is often used? Anybody else using this 'some sort of engine inheritance'?

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to dynamic cast "this" as a return value?

    - by Panayiotis Karabassis
    This is more of a design question. I have a template class, and I want to add extra methods to it depending on the template type. To practice the DRY principle, I have come up with this pattern (definitions intentionally omitted): template <class T> class BaseVector: public boost::array<T, 3> { protected: BaseVector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z); public: bool operator == (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator + (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator - (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> &operator += (const Vector<T> &other) { (*this)[0] += other[0]; (*this)[1] += other[1]; (*this)[2] += other[2]; return *dynamic_cast<Vector<T> * const>(this); } } template <class T> class Vector : public BaseVector<T> { public: Vector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z) : BaseVector<T>(x, y, z) { } }; template <> class Vector<double> : public BaseVector<double> { public: Vector<double>(const double x, const double y, const double z); Vector<double>(const Vector<int> &other); double norm() const; }; I intend BaseVector to be nothing more than an implementation detail. This works, but I am concerned about operator+=. My question is: is the dynamic cast of the this pointer a code smell? Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do (avoid code duplication, and unnecessary casts in the user code)? Or am I safe since, the BaseVector constructor is private?

    Read the article

  • What is the "Dispatcher" design pattern?

    - by Ben Farmer
    What is the "dispatcher" pattern and how would I implement it in code? I have a property bag of generic objects and would like to have the retrieval delegated to a generic method. Currently, I have properties looking for a specific key in the bag. For example: private Dictionary<String, Object> Foo { get; set; } private const String WidgetKey = "WIDGETKEY"; public Widget? WidgetItem { get { return Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey) ? Foo[WidgetKey] as Widget: null; } set { if (Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey)) Foo[WidgetKey] = value; else Foo.Add(WidgetKey, value); } } It was suggested that this could be more generic with the "dispatcher" pattern, but I've been unable to find a good description or example. I'm looking for a more generic way to handle the property bag store/retrieve.

    Read the article

  • Am I abusing Policies?

    - by pmr
    I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

    Read the article

  • Is testability alone justification for dependency injection?

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    The advantages of DI, as far as I am aware, are: Reduced Dependencies More Reusable Code More Testable Code More Readable Code Say I have a repository, OrderRepository, which acts as a repository for an Order object generated through a Linq to Sql dbml. I can't make my orders repository generic as it performs mapping between the Linq Order entity and my own Order POCO domain class. Since the OrderRepository by necessity is dependent on a specific Linq to Sql DataContext, parameter passing of the DataContext can't really be said to make the code reuseable or reduce dependencies in any meaningful way. It also makes the code harder to read, as to instantiate the repository I now need to write new OrdersRepository(new MyLinqDataContext()) which additionally is contrary to the main purpose of the repository, that being to abstract/hide the existence of the DataContext from consuming code. So in general I think this would be a pretty horrible design, but it would give the benefit of facilitating unit testing. Is this enough justification? Or is there a third way? I'd be very interested in hearing opinions.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

    - by Andy
    I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

    Read the article

  • Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

    Read the article

  • creational pattern for instances depending on multiple subclass instances

    - by markusw
    I have a problem, for that I was not able to identify a suitable design pattern. I want to create instances depending on a given type that has been passed to a factory method. What I am doing until now is the following: T create(SuperType x) { if (x instanceof SubType1) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if (x instanceof SubType2) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if ... } else { throw new UnSupportedOperationException("nothing defined for " + x); } } It seems not to be best pratice for me. Has anybody an idea how to solve this in a better way?

    Read the article

  • Using free function as pseudo-constructors to exploit template parameter deduction

    - by Poita_
    Is it a common pattern/idiom to use free functions as pseudo-constructors to avoid having to explicitly specify template parameters? For example, everyone knows about std::make_pair, which uses its parameters to deduce the pair types: template <class A, class B> std::pair<A, B> make_pair(A a, B b) { return std::pair<A, B>(a, b); } // This allows you to call make_pair(1, 2), // instead of having to type pair<int, int>(1, 2) // as you can't get type deduction from the constructor. I find myself using this quite often, so I was just wondering if many other people use it, and if there is a name for this pattern?

    Read the article

  • Delegates in Action -Help

    - by Amutha
    I am learning delegates.I am very curious to apply delegates to the following chain-of-responsibility pattern. Kindly help me the way to apply delegates to the following piece. Thanks in advance.Thanks for your effort. #region Chain of Responsibility Pattern namespace Chain { public class Player { public string Name { get; set; } public int Score { get; set; } } public abstract class PlayerHandler { protected PlayerHandler _Successor = null; public abstract void HandlePlayer(Player _player); public void SetupHandler(PlayerHandler _handler) { _Successor = _handler; } } public class Employee : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score <= 100) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Employee", _player.Name)); } else { _Successor.HandlePlayer(_player); } } } public class Supervisor : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score >100 && _player.Score<=200) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Supervisor", _player.Name)); } else { _Successor.HandlePlayer(_player); } } } public class Manager : PlayerHandler { public override void HandlePlayer(Player _player) { if (_player.Score > 200) { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} is greeted by Manager", _player.Name)); } else { MessageBox.Show(string.Format("{0} got low score", _player.Name)); } } } } #endregion #region Main() void Main() { Chain.Player p1 = new Chain.Player(); p1.Name = "Jon"; p1.Score = 100; Chain.Player p2 = new Chain.Player(); p2.Name = "William"; p2.Score = 170; Chain.Player p3 = new Chain.Player(); p3.Name = "Robert"; p3.Score = 300; Chain.Employee emp = new Chain.Employee(); Chain.Manager mgr = new Chain.Manager(); Chain.Supervisor sup = new Chain.Supervisor(); emp.SetupHandler(sup); sup.SetupHandler(mgr); emp.HandlePlayer(p1); emp.HandlePlayer(p2); emp.HandlePlayer(p3); } #endregion

    Read the article

  • 3 tier application pattern suggestion

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    I have attempted to make my first 3 tier application. In the process I have run into one problem I am yet to find an optimal solution for. Basically all my objects use an IFillable interface which forces the implementation of a sub as follows Public Sub Fill(ByVal Datareader As Data.IDataReader) Implements IFillable.Fill This sub then expects the Ids from the datareader will be identical to the properties of the object as such. Me.m_StockID = Datareader.GetGuid(Datareader.GetOrdinal("StockID")) In the end I end up with a datalayer that looks something like this. Public Shared Function GetStockByID(ByVal ConnectionString As String, ByVal StockID As Guid) As Stock Dim res As New Stock Using sqlConn As New SqlConnection(ConnectionString) sqlConn.Open() res.Fill(StockDataLayer.GetStockByIDQuery(sqlConn, StockID)) End Using Return res End Function Mostly this pattern seems to make sense. However my problem is, lets say I want to implement a property for Stock called StockBarcodeList. Under the above mentioned pattern any way I implement this property I will need to pass a connectionstring to it which obviously breaks my attempt at layer separation. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might be able to solve this problem or am I going about this the completely wrong way? Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might improve my implementation? Please note however I am deliberately trying to avoid using the dataset in any form.

    Read the article

  • how to get access to private members of nested class?

    - by macias
    Background: I have enclosed (parent) class E with nested class N with several instances of N in E. In the enclosed (parent) class I am doing some calculations and I am setting the values for each instance of nested class. Something like this: n1.field1 = ...; n1.field2 = ...; n1.field3 = ...; n2.field1 = ...; ... It is one big eval method (in parent class). My intention is -- since all calculations are in parent class (they cannot be done per nested instance because it would make code more complicated) -- make the setters only available to parent class and getters public. And now there is a problem: when I make the setters private, parent class cannot acces them when I make them public, everybody can change the values and C# does not have friend concept I cannot pass values in constructor because lazy evaluation mechanism is used (so the instances have to be created when referencing them -- I create all objects and the calculation is triggered on demand) I am stuck -- how to do this (limit access up to parent class, no more, no less)? I suspect I'll get answer-question first -- "but why you don't split the evaluation per each field" -- so I answer this by example: how do you calculate min and max value of a collection? In a fast way? The answer is -- in one pass. This is why I have one eval function which does calculations and sets all fields at once.

    Read the article

  • Activator.CreateInstance(string) and Activator.CreateInstance<T>() difference

    - by Juan Manuel Formoso
    No, this is not a question about generics. I have a Factory pattern with several classes with internal constructors (I don't want them being instantiated if not through the factory). My problem is that CreateInstance fails with a "No parameterless constructor defined for this object" error unless I pass "true" on the non-public parameter. Example // Fails Activator.CreateInstance(type); // Works Activator.CreateInstance(type, true); I wanted to make the factory generic to make it a little simpler, like this: public class GenericFactory<T> where T : MyAbstractType { public static T GetInstance() { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } However, I was unable to find how to pass that "true" parameter for it to accept non-public constructors (internal). Did I miss something or it isn't possible?

    Read the article

  • Silverlight Async Design Pattern Issue

    - by Mike Mengell
    I'm in the middle of a Silverlight application and I have a function which needs to call a webservice and using the result complete the rest of the function. My issue is that I would have normally done a synchronous web service call got the result and using that carried on with the function. As Silverlight doesn't support synchronous web service calls without additional custom classes to mimic it, I figure it would be best to go with the flow of async rather than fight it. So my question relates around whats the best design pattern for working with async calls in program flow. In the following example I want to use the myFunction TypeId parameter depending on the return value of the web service call. But I don't want to call the web service until this function is called. How can I alter my code design to allow for the async call? string _myPath; bool myFunction(Guid TypeId) { WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient proxy = new WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient(); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted += new System.EventHandler<WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted>(proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdAsync(TypeId); // Get return value if (myPath == "\\Server1") { //Use the TypeId parameter in here } } void proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted(object sender, WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompletedEventArgs e) { string server = e.Result.Server; myPath = '\\' + server; } Thanks in advance, Mike

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >