Search Results

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

Page 153/2845 | < Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Advice on Factory Method

    - by heath
    Using php 5.2, I'm trying to use a factory to return a service to the controller. My request uri would be of the format www.mydomain.com/service/method/param1/param2/etc. My controller would then call a service factory using the token sent in the uri. From what I've seen, there are two main routes I could go with my factory. Single method: class ServiceFactory { public static function getInstance($token) { switch($token) { case 'location': return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); break; case 'product': return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); break; case 'user' return new UserService(); break; default: return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } } or multiple methods: class ServiceFactory { public static function getLocationService() { return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); } public static function getProductService() { return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); } public static function getUserService() { return new UserService(); } public static function getDefaultService($token) { return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } So, given this, I will have a handful of generic services in which I will pass that token (for example, StaticPageTemplateService and DynamicPageTemplateService) that will probably implement another factory method just like this to grab templates, domain objects, etc. And some that will be specific services (for example, UserService) which will be 1:1 to that token and not reused. So, this seems to be an ok approach (please give suggestions if it is not) for a small amount of services. But what about when, over time and my site grows, I end up with 100s of possibilities. This no longer seems like a good approach. Am I just way off to begin with or is there another design pattern that would be a better fit? Thanks. UPDATE: @JSprang - the token is actually sent in the uri like mydomain.com/location would want a service specific to loction and mydomain.com/news would want a service specific to news. Now, for a lot of these, the service will be generic. For instance, a lot of pages will call a StaticTemplatePageService in which the token is passed in to the service. That service in turn will grab the "location" template or "links" template and just spit it back out. Some will need DynamicTemplatePageService in which the token gets passed in, like "news" and that service will grab a NewsDomainObject, determine how to present it and spit that back out. Others, like "user" will be specific to a UserService in which it will have methods like Login, Logout, etc. So basically, the token will be used to determine which service is needed AND if it is generic service, that token will be passed to that service. Maybe token isn't the correct terminology but I hope you get the purpose. I wanted to use the factory so I can easily swap out which Service I need in case my needs change. I just worry that after the site grows larger (both pages and functionality) that the factory will become rather bloated. But I'm starting to feel like I just can't get away from storing the mappings in an array (like Stephen's solution). That just doesn't feel OOP to me and I was hoping to find something more elegant.

    Read the article

  • MVC and conditional formatting - strategies for implementation

    - by Extrakun
    Right now I am writing a simulation program which output is formatted according to certain factors. The question is in a MVC architecture, where is the conditional formatting to be taken place? What are some strategies for implement this feature? FYI, The platform I am using is rather bare-bone in its GUI/front-end execution. To change color and formatting, it requires a change to the formatting state (much like OpenGL).

    Read the article

  • How do I turn an array of bytes back into a file and open it automatically with C#?

    - by Ace Grace
    Hi, I am writing some code to add file attachments into an application I am building. I have add & Remove working but I don't know where to start to implement open. I have an array of bytes (from a table field) and I don't know how to make it automatically open e.g. If I have an array of bytes which is a PDF, how do I get my app to automatically open Acrobat or whatever the currently assigned application for the extension is using C#?

    Read the article

  • Parent child class relationship design pattern

    - by Jeremy
    I have a class which has a list of child items. Is there a design pattern I can copy that I can apply to these classes so that I can access the parent instance from the child, and it enforces rules such as not being able to add the child to multiple parents, etc?

    Read the article

  • C++ interpreter conceptual problem

    - by Jan Wilkins
    I've built an interpreter in C++ for a language created by me. One main problem in the design was that I had two different types in the language: number and string. So I have to pass around a struct like: class myInterpreterValue { myInterpreterType type; int intValue; string strValue; } Objects of this class are passed around million times a second during e.g.: a countdown loop in my language. Profiling pointed out: 85% of the performance is eaten by the allocation function of the string template. This is pretty clear to me: My interpreter has bad design and doesn't use pointers enough. Yet, I don't have an option: I can't use pointers in most cases as I just have to make copies. How to do something against this? Is a class like this a better idea? vector<string> strTable; vector<int> intTable; class myInterpreterValue { myInterpreterType type; int locationInTable; } So the class only knows what type it represents and the position in the table This however again has disadvantages: I'd have to add temporary values to the string/int vector table and then remove them again, this would eat a lot of performance again. Help, how do interpreters of languages like Python or Ruby do that? They somehow need a struct that represents a value in the language like something that can either be int or string.

    Read the article

  • Service Layer Pattern - Could we avoid the service layer on a specific case?

    - by lidermin
    Hi, we are trying to implement an application using the Service Layer Pattern cause our application needs to connect to other multiple applications too, and googling on the web, we found this link of a demonstrative graphic for the "right" way of apply the pattern: martinfowler.com - Service Layer Pattern But now we have a question: what if our system needs to implement some business logic, only for our application (like some maintenance data for the system itself) that we don't need to share with other systems. Based on this graphic: As it seems, it will be unnecesary to implement a service layer just for that; it will be more practical to avoid the service layer, and just go from User Interface to the Business Layer (for example). What should be the right way in this case to implement the Service Layer Pattern? What do you suggest us for a scenario like the one I told you? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Implementing the procducer-consumer with .NET 4.0 new

    - by bitbonk
    With alle the new paralell programming features in .NET 4.0, what would be a a simple and fast way to implement the producer-consumer pattern (where at least one thread is producing and enqueuing task items and one other thread executes (dequeues) these tasks). Can we benfit from all these new APIs? What is your preferred implementation of this pattern?

    Read the article

  • Should I use the Model-View-ViewModel (MVVM) pattern in Silverlight projects?

    - by Jon Galloway
    One challenge with Silverlight controls is that when properties are bound to code, they're no longer really editable in Blend. For example, if you've got a ListView that's populated from a data feed, there are no elements visible when you edit the control in Blend. I've heard that the MVVM pattern, originated by the WPF development community, can also help with keeping Silverlight controls "blendable". I'm still wrapping my head around it, but here are some explanations: http://www.nikhilk.net/Silverlight-ViewModel-Pattern.aspx http://mark-dot-net.blogspot.com/2008/11/model-view-view-model-mvvm-in.html http://www.ryankeeter.com/silverlight/silverlight-mvvm-pt-1-hello-world-style/ http://jonas.follesoe.no/YouCardRevisitedImplementingTheViewModelPattern.aspx One potential downside is that the pattern requires additional classes, although not necessarily more code (as shown by the second link above). Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Meta Search Engine Architecture

    - by Loki
    The question wasn't clear enough, I think; here's an updated straight to the point question: What are the common architectures used in building a meta search engine and is there any libraries available to build that type of search engine? I'm looking at building an "enterprise" type of search engine where the indexed data could be coming from proprietary (like Autonomy or a Google Box) or public search engines (like Google Web or Yahoo Web).

    Read the article

  • Ruby: output not saved to file

    - by Sophie
    I'm trying to give a file as input, have it changed within the program, and save the result to a file that is output. But the output file is the same as the input file. :/ Total n00b question, but what am I doing wrong?: puts "Reading Celsius temperature value from data file..." num = File.read("temperature.dat") celsius = num.to_i farenheit = (celsius * 9/5) + 32 puts "Saving result to output file 'faren_temp.out'" fh = File.new("faren_temp.out", "w") fh.puts farenheit fh.close

    Read the article

  • StockTrader RI > Controllers, Presenters, WTF?

    - by SandRock
    I am currently learning how to make advanced usage of WPF via the Prism (Composite WPF) project. I watch many videos and examples and the demo application StockTraderRI makes me ask this question: What is the exact role of each of the following part? SomethingService: Ok, this is something to manage data SomethingView: Ok, this is what's displayed SomethingPresentationModel: Ok, this contains data and commands for the view to bind to (equivalent to a ViewModel). SomethingPresenter: I don't really understand it's usage SomethingController: Don't understand too I saw that a Presenter and a Controller are not necessary but I would like to understand why they are here. Can someone tell me their role and when to use them?

    Read the article

  • Java interface and abstract class issue

    - by George2
    Hello everyone, I am reading the book -- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide, http://www.amazon.com/Hadoop-Definitive-Guide-Tom-White/dp/0596521979/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273932107&sr=8-1 In chapter 2 (Page 25), it is mentioned "The new API favors abstract class over interfaces, since these are easier to evolve. For example, you can add a method (with a default implementation) to an abstract class without breaking old implementations of the class". What does it mean (especially what means "breaking old implementations of the class")? Appreciate if anyone could show me a sample why from this perspective abstract class is better than interface? thanks in advance, George

    Read the article

  • strategy for observer pattern?

    - by fayer
    I want to use observer pattern for a logging system. We have got logObservers and logObservables. The class that will have to log something will implement iLogObservable and include these methods: private $logObservers = array(); public function addLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function removeLogObserver($logObserver) { $this->logObservers[] = $logObserver; } public function write($type, $message) { foreach($this->logObservers as $logObserver) { $logObserver->log($level, $message); ; } } Then I noticed, that a lot of classes that will use logging will have these methods and I have to copy paste. So isn't it better to have these methods in a class I call LogObservable or just Log and then use strategy (instantiate this class inside all classes that will have to log). When I change the methods in Log, all logObservables will be affected. However, I have not seen anyone use observer pattern with strategy pattern yet, but it seems to be very efficient and remove the duplications. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Lackadaisical One-to-One between Char and Byte Streams

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I expected to have a one-to-one correspondence between the character streams and byte streams in terms of how the classes are organized in their hierarchy. FilterReader and FilterWriter (character streams) correspond back to FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream (byte stream) classes. However I noticed few changes as - BufferedInputStream extends FilterInputStream, but BufferedReader does NOT extend FilterReader. BufferedOutputStream and PrintStream both extend FilterOutputStream, but BufferedWriter and PrintWriter does NOT extend FilterWriter. FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream are not abstract classes, but FilterReader and FilterWriter are. I am not sure if I am being too paranoid to point out such differences, but was just curious to know if there was design reasoning behind such decision.

    Read the article

  • Designing a class in such a way that it doesn't become a "God object"

    - by devoured elysium
    I'm designing an application that will allow me to draw some functions on a graphic. Each function will be drawn from a set of points that I will pass to this graphic class. There are different kinds of points, all inheriting from a MyPoint class. For some kind of points it will be just printing them on the screen as they are, others can be ignored, others added, so there is some kind of logic associated to them that can get complex. How to actually draw the graphic is not the main issue here. What bothers me is how to make the code logic such that this GraphicMaker class doesn't become the so called God-Object. It would be easy to make something like this: class GraphicMaker { ArrayList<Point> points = new ArrayList<Point>(); public void AddPoint(Point point) { points.add(point); } public void DoDrawing() { foreach (Point point in points) { if (point is PointA) { //some logic here else if (point is PointXYZ) { //...etc } } } } How would you do something like this? I have a feeling the correct way would be to put the drawing logic on each Point object (so each child class from Point would know how to draw itself) but two problems arise: There will be kinds of points that need to know all the other points that exist in the GraphicObject class to know how to draw themselves. I can make a lot of the methods/properties from the Graphic class public, so that all the points have a reference to the Graphic class and can make all their logic as they want, but isn't that a big price to pay for not wanting to have a God class?

    Read the article

  • Objective-c design advice for use of different data sources, swapping between test and live

    - by user200341
    I'm in the process of designing an application that is part of a larger piece of work, depending on other people to build an API that the app can make use of to retrieve data. While I was thinking about how to setup this project and design the architecture around it, something occurred to me, and I'm sure many people have been in similar situations. Since my work is depending on other people to complete their tasks, and a test server, this slows work down at my end. So the question is: What's the best practice for creating test repositories and classes, implementing them, and not having to depend on altering several places in the code to swap between the test classes and the actual repositories / proper api calls. Contemplate the following scenario: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [[GetDataFromApiCommand alloc]init]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; Once the data is available via the API, "GetDataFromApiCommand" could use the actual API, but until then a set of mock data could be returned upon the call of [getDataCommand getData] There might be multiple instances of this, in various places in the code, so replacing all of them wherever they are, is a slow and painful process which inevitably leads to one or two being overlooked. In strongly typed languages we could use dependency injection and just alter one place. In objective-c a factory pattern could be implemented, but is that the best route to go for this? GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [GetDataFromApiCommandFactory buildGetDataFromApiCommand]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; What is the best practices to achieve this result? Since this would be most useful, even if you have the actual API available, to run tests, or work off-line, the ApiCommands would not necessarily have to be replaced permanently, but the option to select "Do I want to use TestApiCommand or ApiCommand". It is more interesting to have the option to switch between: All commands are test and All command use the live API, rather than selecting them one by one, however that would also be useful to do for testing one or two actual API commands, mixing them with test data. EDIT The way I have chosen to go with this is to use the factory pattern. I set up the factory as follows: @implementation ApiCommandFactory + (ApiCommand *)newApiCommand { // return [[ApiCommand alloc]init]; return [[ApiCommandMock alloc]init]; } @end And anywhere I want to use the ApiCommand class: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [ApiCommandFactory newApiCommand]; When the actual API call is required, the comments can be removed and the mock can be commented out. Using new in the message name implies that who ever uses the factory to get an object, is responsible for releasing it (since we want to avoid autorelease on the iPhone). If additional parameters are required, the factory needs to take these into consideration i.e: [ApiCommandFactory newSecondApiCommand:@"param1"]; This will work quite well with repositories as well.

    Read the article

  • Simple but good pattern for EJB

    - by Sara
    What would you suggest as a good and practical but simple pattern for a soloution with: HTML + JSP (as a view/presentation) SERVLETS (controller, request, session-handling) EJB (persistence, businesslogic) MySQL DB And is it necessary to use an own layer of DAO for persistence? I use JPA to persist objects to my DB. Should I withdraw business logic from my EJB? Sources online all tell me different things and confuses me...

    Read the article

  • Stream classes ... design, pattern for creating views over streams

    - by ToxicAvenger
    A question regarding the design of stream classes - I need a pattern to create independent views over a single stream instance (in my case for reading). A view would be a consecutive part of the stream. The problem I have with the stream classes is that the state (reading or writing) is coupled with the underlying data/storage. So if I need to partition a stream into different segments (whether segments overlap or not doesn't matter), I cannot easily create views over the stream, the views would store start and end position. Because reading from a view - which would translate to reading from the underlying stream adjusted based on the start/end positions - would change the state of the underlying stream instance. So what I could do is take a read on a view instance, adjust the Position of the stream, read the chunks I need. But I cannot do that concurrently. Why is it designed in such a way, and what kind of pattern could I implement to create independet views over a single stream instance which would allow to read/write independently (and concurrently)?

    Read the article

  • What design pattern shall I use in this question?

    - by iyad al aqel
    To be frank, this is a homework question, so I'll tell you my opinion. Can you let me know my mistakes rather than giving me the solution? This is the question : Assume a restaurant that only offers the following two types of meals: (a) a full meal and (b)an economic meal. The full meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Appetizer 2. Drink 3. Main dish 4. Dessert Meanwhile the economic meal consists of the following food items and is served in the following order: 1. Drink 2. Main dish Identify the most appropriate design pattern that can be used to allow a customer to only order using one of the two types of meals provided and that the meal components must be served in the given order. I'm confused between the Factory and the Iterator and using them both together. Using the factory Pattern we can create the two meals full and economic and provide the user with with a base object class that will decide upon. But how can we enforce the ordering of the elements, I thought of using the iterator along that will iterate through the the composite of the two created factories sort of speak. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • [Delphi] How would you refactor this code?

    - by Al C
    This hypothetical example illustrates several problems I can't seem to get past, even though I keep trying!! ... Suppose the original code is a long event handler, coded in the UI, triggered when a user clicks a cell in a grid. Expressed as pseudocode it's: if Condition1=true then begin //loop through every cell in row, //if aCell/headerCellValue>1 then //color aCell red end else if Condition2=true then begin //do some other calculation adding cell and headerCell values, and //if some other product>2 then //color the whole row green end else show an error message I look at this and say "Ah, refactor to the strategy pattern! The code will be easier to understand, easier to debug, and easier to later extend!" I get that. And I can easily break the code into multiple procedures. The problem is ultimately scope related. Assume the pseudocode makes extensive use of grid properties, values displayed in cells, maybe even built-in grid methods. How do you move all that to another unit, without referencing the grid component in the UI--which would break all the "rules" about loose coupling that make OOP valuable? ... I'm really looking forward to responses. Thanks, as always -- Al C.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160  | Next Page >