Search Results

Search found 25346 results on 1014 pages for 'framework design'.

Page 172/1014 | < Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >

  • Generic Repository with SQLite and SQL Compact Databases

    - by Andrew Petersen
    I am creating a project that has a mobile app (Xamarin.Android) using a SQLite database and a WPF application (Code First Entity Framework 5) using a SQL Compact database. This project will even eventually have a SQL Server database as well. Because of this I am trying to create a generic repository, so that I can pass in the correct context depending on which application is making the request. The issue I ran into is my DataContext for the SQL Compact database inherits from DbContext and the SQLite database inherits from SQLiteConnection. What is the best way to make this generic, so that it doesn't matter what kind of database is on the back end? This is what I have tried so far on the SQL Compact side: public interface IRepository<TEntity> { TEntity Add(TEntity entity); } public class Repository<TEntity, TContext> : IRepository<TEntity>, IDisposable where TEntity : class where TContext : DbContext { private readonly TContext _context; public Repository(DbContext dbContext) { _context = dbContext as TContext; } public virtual TEntity Add(TEntity entity) { return _context.Set<TEntity>().Add(entity); } } And on the SQLite side: public class ElverDatabase : SQLiteConnection { static readonly object Locker = new object(); public ElverDatabase(string path) : base(path) { CreateTable<Ticket>(); } public int Add<T>(T item) where T : IBusinessEntity { lock (Locker) { return Insert(item); } } }

    Read the article

  • VBO and shaders confusion, what's their connection?

    - by Jeffrey
    Considering OpenGL 2.1 VBOs and 1.20 GLSL shaders: When creating an entity like "Zombie", is it good to initialize just the VBO buffer with the data once and do N glDrawArrays() calls per each N zombies? Is there a more efficient way? (With a single call we cannot pass different uniforms to the shader to calculate an offset, see point 3) When dealing with logical object (player, tree, cube etc), should I always use the same shader or should I customize (or be able to customize) the shaders per each object? Considering an entity class, should I create and define the shader at object initialization? When having a movable object such as a human, is there any more powerful way to deal with its coordinates than to initialize its VBO object at 0,0 and define an uniform offset to pass to the shader to calculate its real position? Could you make an example of the Data Oriented Design on creating a generic zombie class? Is the following good? Zombielist class: class ZombieList { GLuint vbo; // generic zombie vertex model std::vector<color>; // object default color std::vector<texture>; // objects textures std::vector<vector3D>; // objects positions public: unsigned int create(); // return object id void move(unsigned int objId, vector3D offset); void rotate(unsigned int objId, float angle); void setColor(unsigned int objId, color c); void setPosition(unsigned int objId, color c); void setTexture(unsigned int, unsigned int); ... void update(Player*); // move towards player, attack if near } Example: Player p; Zombielist zl; unsigned int first = zl.create(); zl.setPosition(first, vector3D(50, 50)); zl.setTexture(first, texture("zombie1.png")); ... while (running) { // main loop ... zl.update(&p); zl.draw(); // draw every zombie }

    Read the article

  • What are some arguments AGAINST using EntityFramework?

    - by Rachel
    The application I am currently building has been using Stored procedures and hand-crafted class models to represent database objects. Some people have suggested using Entity Framework and I am considering switching to that since I am not that far into the project. My problem is, I feel the people arguing for EF are only telling me the good side of things, not the bad side :) My main concerns are: We want Client-Side validation using DataAnnotations, and it sounds like I have to create the client-side models anyways so I am not sure that EF would save that much coding time We would like to keep the classes as small as possible when going over the network, and I have read that using EF often includes extra data that is not needed We have a complex database layer which crosses multiple databases, and I am not sure EF can handle this. We have one Common database with things like Users, StatusCodes, Types, etc and multiple instances of our main databases for different instances of the application. SELECT queries can and will query across all instances of the databases, however users can only modify objects that are in the database they are currently working on. They can switch databases without reloading the application. Object modes are very complex and there are often quite a few joins involved Arguments for EF are: Concurrency. I wouldn't have to code in checks to see if the record was updated before each save Code Generation. EF can generate partial class models and POCOs for me, however I am not positive this would really save me that much time since I think we would still need to create the client-side models for validation and some custom parsing methods. Speed of development since we wouldn't need to create the CRUD stored procedures for every database object Our current architecture consists of a WPF Service which handles database calls via parameterized Stored Procedures, POCO objects that go to/from the WCF service and the WPF client, and the WPF client itself which transforms POCOs into class Models for the purpose of Validation and DataBinding.

    Read the article

  • What is a good basic/flexible cms for a small website? [closed]

    - by Samuel
    Possible Duplicate: Which Content Management System (CMS) should I use? I'm designing a very basic portfolio website for an artist. It features a blog, portfolio, cv and contact page. I've handcoded the basics of this site in php/java, as it is a very small website (and I like coding by hand). But I need a simple cms backend for the dynamic parts of the website (the blog/portfolio). The big systems (ruby, joomla, wordpress) are far too invasive for my liking (and frankly a bit beyond my capabilities). Wordpress for example, requires too much adaptation of the design to the wordpress structure, and ruby is far too extensive for a simple site like this (in my opinion). So what I'm looking for is a (preferably open source) cms that has a simple backend for the artist to use as a blogger, with a mysql database for the content, that will allow me to insert content with simple tags (using smarty tags for example), but is otherwise not too invasive or demanding in terms of the required page structure. Does anyone know of a good cms that fits this description? p.s.: I have tried phpnews and cmsmadesimple, but phpnews was a litte too basic (but very close too what I'm looking for) and cmsmadesimple was way too slow (but otherwise also pretty close too what I wanted, though a bit too extensive).

    Read the article

  • Intelligence as a vector quantity

    - by Senthil Kumaran
    I am reading this wonderful book called "Coders at Work: Reflections on the Craft of Programming" by Peter Seibel and I am at part wherein the conversation is with Joshua Bloch and I found this answer which is an important point for a programmer. The paragraph, goes something like this. There's this problem, which is, programming is so much of an intellectual meritocracy and often these people are the smartest people in the organization; therefore they figure they should be allowed to make all the decisions. But merely the fact they are the smartest people in the organization does not mean that they should be making all the decisions, because intelligence is not a scalar quantity; it's a vector quantity. Here at the last sentence, I fail to get the insight which is he trying to share. Can someone explain it in a little further as what he means by a vector quantity, possibly trying to present the same insight. Further down, I get the point that he is not taking about having an organization where non-technical people (sometimes clueless) can be managers of the technical people for some reason that they can spend more time to write emails well, because the very next statement following the above paragraph was. And if you lack empathy or emotional intelligence, then you shouldn't be designing APIs or GUIs or languages. I understand that he is saying that in Software engineering, programmers should know how the users will see their product and design for them. I felt the above paragraph was very interesting.

    Read the article

  • How was Git designed?

    - by Mark Canlas
    My workplace recently switched to Git and I've been loving (and hating!) it. I really do love it, and it is extremely powerful. The only part I hate is that sometimes it's too powerful (and maybe a bit terse/confusing). My question is... How was Git designed? Just using it for a short amount of time, you get the feel that it can handle many obscure workflows that other version control systems could not. But it also feels elegant underneath. And fast! This is no doubt in part to Linus's talent. But I'm wondering, was the overall design of git based off of something? I've read about BitKeeper but the accounts are scant on technical details. The compression, the graphs, getting rid of revision numbers, emphasizing branching, stashing, remotes... Where did it all come from? Linus really knocked this one out of the park and on pretty much the first try! It's quite good to use once you're past the learning curve.

    Read the article

  • Different methods of ammo resupply

    - by Chris Mantle
    I'm writing a small game at the moment. Presently, I have one or two design elements that aren't locked down yet, and I wanted to ask for input on one of these. For dramatic effect, the player's character in my game is immobilised, alone and has a supposedly limited amount of ammo for their weapons. However, I would like to periodically resupply the player with ammo (for the purpose of balancing the level of difficulty and to allow the player to continue if they're doing well). I'm trying to think of a method of resupply that's different to the more familiar strategies of making ammo magically appear or having the antagonists drop some when they die. I'd like to emphasise the notion of the player's isolation as much as possible, and finding a way of 'sneaking' ammo to the player without removing too much of that emphasis is basically what I'm trying to think of (it's definitely a valid argument that resupplying the player removes it anyway) I have considered a sort of simple in-game 'store', where kills get you points that you can spend on ammo for your favourite weapon. This might work well, and may also be good for supporting a simple micro-transaction business model within the game. However, you'd have to pause the game often to make purchases, which would interrupt the action, and it works against the notion of isolation. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Caching strategies for entities and collections

    - by Rob West
    We currently have an application framework in which we automatically cache both entities and collections of entities at the business layer (using .NET cache). So the method GetWidget(int id) checks the cache using a key GetWidget_Id_{0} before hitting the database, and the method GetWidgetsByStatusId(int statusId) checks the cache using GetWidgets_Collections_ByStatusId_{0}. If the objects are not in the cache they are retrieved from the database and added to the cache. This approach is obviously quick for read scenarios, and as a blanket approach is quick for us to implement, but requires large numbers of cache keys to be purged when CRUD operations are carried out on entities. Obviously as additional methods are added this impacts performance and the benefits of caching diminish. I'm interested in alternative approaches to handling caching of collections. I know that NHibernate caches a list of the identifiers in the collection rather than the actual entities. Is this an approach other people have tried - what are the pros and cons? In particular I am looking for options that optimise performance and can be implemented automatically through boilerplate generated code (we have our own code generation tool). I know some people will say that caching needs to be done by hand each time to meet the needs of the specific situation but I am looking for something that will get us most of the way automatically.

    Read the article

  • Pattern for Accessing MySQL connection

    - by Dipan Mehta
    We have an application which is C++ trying to access MySQL database. There are several (about 5 or so) threads in the application (with Boost library for threading) and in each thread has a few objects, each of which is trying to access Database for its' own purpose. It has a simple ORM kind of model but that really is not an important factor here. There are three potential access patterns i can think of: There could be single connection object per application or thread and is shared between all (or group). The object needs to be thread safe and there will be contentions but MySQL will not be fired with too many connections. Every object could initiate connection on its own. The database needs to take care of concurrency (which i think MySQL can) and the design could be much simpler. There could be two possibilities here. a. either object keeps a persistent connection for its life OR b. object initiate connection as and when needed. To simplify the contention as in case of 1 and not to create too many sockets as in case of 2, we can have group/set based connections. So there could be there could be more than one connection (say N), each of this connection could be shared connection across M objects. Naturally, each of the pattern has different resource cost and would work under different constraints and objectives. What criteria should i use to choose the pattern of this for my own application? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these pattern over the other? Are there any other pattern which is better? PS: I have been through these questions: mysql, one connection vs multiple and MySQL with mutiple threads and processes But they don't quite answer exactly what i am trying to ask.

    Read the article

  • Constructs for wrapping a hardware state machine

    - by Henry Gomersall
    I am using a piece of hardware with a well defined C API. The hardware is stateful, with the relevant API calls needing to be in the correct order for the hardware to work properly. The API calls themselves will always return, passing back a flag that advises whether the call was successful, or if not, why not. The hardware will not be left in some ill defined state. In effect, the API calls advise indirectly of the current state of the hardware if the state is not correct to perform a given operation. It seems to be a pretty common hardware API style. My question is this: Is there a well established design pattern for wrapping such a hardware state machine in a high level language, such that consistency is maintained? My development is in Python. I ideally wish the hardware state machine to be abstracted to a much simpler state machine and wrapped in an object that represents the hardware. I'm not sure what should happen if an attempt is made to create multiple objects representing the same piece of hardware. I apologies for the slight vagueness, I'm not very knowledgeable in this area and so am fishing for assistance of the description as well!

    Read the article

  • Auto update for application hosted on multiple servers on cloud

    - by mots_g
    I'm working on an application which will run on multiple Amazon EC2 instances. I wish to incorporate auto update feature for my application. The updater should update all the Ec2 instances. Also, there is a central server which governs the creation/termination of EC2 instances as per load. The central server creates a EC2 new instance from a pre-configured custom AMI (custom image which has our application pre-installed). Also, once there is an update, the pre-configured AMI needs to be updated too else it would create new instances which are not updated. Should the central server notify all the ec2 instances for an update and then the instances update themselves?Or should the application on Ec2 instance have a check for periodically updating themselves? Also how should the Amazon custom AMI be updated? Should a new instance be created from it, updated and then a new AMI be re-created and then new images be created from this AMI? What is the best way to incorporate an auto update feature for this architecture? The central server is written in Java and the application running on the cloud is written in C++. Is there a good framework available that can be used for this architecture? Please let me know on what I could be missing in the design and how it would help me to have a nice, extensible and fail safe auto update architecture. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Programming and Ubiquitous Language (DDD) in a non-English domain

    - by Sandor Drieënhuizen
    I know there are some questions already here that are closely related to this subject but none of them take Ubquitous Language as the starting point so I think that justifies this question. For those who don't know: Ubiquitous Language is the concept of defining a (both spoken and written) language that is equally used across developers and domain experts to avoid inconsistencies and miscommunication due to translation problems and misunderstanding. You will see the same terminology show up in code, conversations between any team member, functional specs and whatnot. So, what I was wondering about is how to deal with Ubiquitous Language in non-English domains. Personally, I strongly favor writing programming code in English completely, including comments but ofcourse excluding constants and resources. However, in a non-English domain, I'm forced to make a decision either to: Write code reflecting the Ubiquitous Language in the natural language of the domain. Translate the Ubiquitous Language to English and stop communicating in the natural language of the domain. Define a table that defines how the Ubiquitous Language translates to English. Here are some of my thoughts based on these options: 1) I have a strong aversion against mixed-language code, that is coding using type/member/variable names etc. that are non-English. Most programming languages 'breathe' English to a large extent and most of the technical literature, design pattern names etc. are in English as well. Therefore, in most cases there's just no way of writing code entirely in a non-English language so you end up with a mixed languages. 2) This will force the domain experts to start thinking and talking in the English equivalent of the UL, something that will probably not come naturally to them and therefore hinders communication significantly. 3) In this case, the developers communicate with the domain experts in their native language while the developers communicate with each other in English and most importantly, they write code using the English translation of the UL. I'm sure I don't want to go for the first option and I think option 3 is much better than option 2. What do you think? Am I missing other options?

    Read the article

  • Link to article on website libraries

    - by acidzombie24
    I just started another website and it has taken me 30mins to copy/paste my other website and delete stuff because I don't have a template. Theres lots of features I copied over that I haven't seen in libraries/templates. But I don't really know any libraries/templates. This site is ASP.NET. Some things I have is a string.format that escapes strings for HTML (so <hi> is text instead of a tag). Other features are adding or removing items in the url query, a class to pass in a ASP.NET error and log or convert it into a row in a db (I know about elmah but during development on my last site it wasn't Mono compatible), a mini AJAX library for success/fail/redirect/etc, a class to pass in a ASP.NET error and log or convert it into a row in a db and anything else I would use in every site. I don't like my (library) design because I wasn't expecting to do more then 2-3 websites and I am on my 5th. I don't know proper ASP.NET either so what is an article that explains how to make a great library/template for websites?

    Read the article

  • Best Persistence choice for J2EE-App with frequently changing Data Model

    - by Ben-G
    Whenever I develop a J2EE-Application, I at some point decide to switch from my dummy Persistence (Simply Using Lists and other Data Structures) to some Sort of Database Persistence. Mostly when I hope the Data Model is more or less complete. From this point on, changes to the data model become exhausting, but unluckily they occur rather often. I've used different Object-Relational-Mappers (iBatis, Hibernate) for my projects. They definitely reduce the pain coming with Data Model changes, but they anyway let me adjust code/configuration at 3 or 4 places for every single change. To me, that's cumbersome and error prone. I made a better experience with DB4O, which simply persists Java Objects as they are, but I believe it's performance does not scale for huge applications. Is there anyway to maintain performance while letting out all the ugly configuration work? I'm seeking a performant framework which really hides persistence from my code. Wish for thinking? Or am I missing out THE technology? Hope you can help.

    Read the article

  • Should I create my own Assert class based on these reasons?

    - by Mike
    The main reason I don't like Debug.Assert is the fact that these assertions are disabled in Release. I know that there's a performance reason for that, but at least in my situation I believe the gains would outweigh the cost. (By the way, I'm guessing this is the situation in most cases). And yes, I know that you can use Trace.Assert instead. But even though that would work, I find the name Trace distracting, since I don't see this as tracing. The other reason to create my own class is laziness I guess, since I could write methods for the most usual cases like Assert.IsNotNull, Assert.Equals and so forth. The second part of my question has to do with using Environment.FailFast in this class. Would that be a good idea? I do like the ideas put forth in this document. That's pretty much where I got the idea from. One last point. Does creating a design like this imply having an untestable code path, as described in this answer by Eric Lippert on a different (but related) question?

    Read the article

  • Examples of 2D side-scrollers that achieve open non-linear feel?

    - by Milosz Falinski
    I'm working on a 2.5D platformer prototype that aims for an open feel while maintaining familiar core mechanics. Now, there's some obvious challenges with creating a non constricted feel in a spatially constricted environment. What I'm interested in, is examples of how game designers deal with the "here's a level, beat the bad guys/puzzles to get to the next level" design that seems so natural to most platformers (eg. Mario/Braid/Pid/Meat Boy to name a few). Some ideas for achieving openness I've come across include: One obvious successful example is Terraria, which achieves openness simply through complexity and flexibility of the game-system Another example that comes to mind is Cave Story. Game is non-linear, offers multiple choices and side-stories Mario, Rayman and some other 'classics' with a top-down level selection. I actually really dislike this as it never did anything for me emotionally and just seems like a bit of a lazy way to do things. Note: I've not actually had much experience with most of the 'classical' console platformers, apart from the obvious Marios/Zeldas/Metroids, since I've grown up on adventure games. By that I mean, it's entirely possible that I simply missed some games that solve the problem really well and are by some considered obvious 'classics'.

    Read the article

  • What web technology could I use which would support a decision tree?

    - by Rami Alhamad
    I am a big game development fan but I haven't done any commercial work in the past. I have been asked by a non-profit to look at developing a game similar to the award-winning www.playspent.org They want the following features: support 5 scenarios mobile isn't important but compatibility with older browsers would be a big bonus they want it to be visual and audible bonus is to have it easily modifiable support 4 languages I don't have much knowledge of Flash and would rather avoid using it as a solution. I started breaking down the problem into segments that I will need to examine, they are as follows: ability to read the game flow from a file that they can produce (xml, etc.) db design to store decision tree language challenge browser compatibility I am leaning towards an Google app engine/GWT solution but I am not sure what technology is best for this. I am really hoping to get your opinion/recommendation on my approach and on what technology is best. A special thanks (and beer if you live in Toronto) will be awarded to anyone who can help give me a ballpark estimate on how much such a game should go for. I know it's tough to estimate but any rough figure will help (how much would you charge for building something like playspent.org?) Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Optimization ended up in casting an object at each method call

    - by Aybe
    I've been doing some optimization for the following piece of code : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color); } After profiling it about 70% of the time spent was in getting a context for drawing and disposing it. I ended up sketching the following overload : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, BitmapContext bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, bitmapContext); } Until here no problems, all the user has to do is to pass a context and performance is really great as a context is created/disposed one time only (previously it was a thousand times per second). The next step was to make it generic in the sense it doesn't depend on a particular framework for rendering (besides .NET obvisouly). So I wrote this method : public void DrawLine(int x1, int y1, int x2, int y2, int color, IDisposable bitmapContext) { _bitmap.DrawLineBresenham(x1, y1, x2, y2, color, (BitmapContext)bitmapContext); } Now every time a line is drawn the generic context is casted, this was unexpected for me. Are there any approaches for fixing this design issue ? Note : _bitmap is a WriteableBitmap from WPF BitmapContext is from WriteableBitmapEx library DrawLineBresenham is an extension method from WriteableBitmapEx

    Read the article

  • Requiring multithreading/concurrency for implementation of scripting language

    - by Ricky Stewart
    Here's the deal: I'm looking at designing my own scripting/interpreted language for fun. I'm only in the planning stages right now; I want to make sure I have a very strong hold on exactly how I will implement everything before I start coding. What I'm currently struggling with is concurrency. It seems to me like an easy way to avoid the unpredictable performance that comes with garbage collection would be to put the garbage collector in its own thread, and have it run concurrently with the interpreter itself. (To be clear, I don't plan to allow the scripts to be multithreaded themselves; I would simply put a garbage collector to work in a different thread than the interpreter.) This doesn't seem to be a common strategy for many popular scripting languages, probably for portability reasons; I would probably write the interpreter in the UNIX/POSIX threading framework initially and then port it to other platforms (Windows, etc.) if need be. Does anyone have any thoughts in this issue? Would whatever gains I receive by exploiting concurrency be nullified by the portability issues that will inevitably arise? (On that note, am I really correct in my assumption that I would experience great performance gains with a concurrent garbage collector?) Should I move forward with this strategy or step away from it?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to build a single game to run in Facebook & Google+?

    - by Songo
    I was asked by my customer to build a Facebook game. The game would be something similar to Mafiawars.com where the game is hosted on a server and run through a frame on Facebook. The thing is after several days of negotiations with the customer and near the finalization of the requirements he mentioned something strange. He said that if the game was successful on Facebook then we may add it to Google+ too. I thought he meant that we'll develop a new version for Google+, but he refused as he argued that the game should be able to support both sites and he won't pay for the same game twice. Now I haven't developed neither Facebook nor Google+ games before, so I don't know if it is possible to build a single Facebook/Google+ game. How would you react to such requirement? How would you design such an application? Notes I confirmed with the customer that he wasn't talking about using Open ID he wanted full integration (sharing post, friend requests,..etc.) I really don't want to lose that customer for numerous reasons (He even agreed to extend the project time to compensate for the time I need to learn Facebook/Google+ APIs)

    Read the article

  • Finding a way to simplify complex queries on legacy application

    - by glenatron
    I am working with an existing application built on Rails 3.1/MySql with much of the work taking place in a JavaScript interface, although the actual platforms are not tremendously relevant here, except in that they give context. The application is powerful, handles a reasonable amount of data and works well. As the number of customers using it and the complexity of the projects they create increases, however, we are starting to run into a few performance problems. As far as I can tell, the source of these problems is that the data represents a tree and it is very hard for ActiveRecord to deterministically know what data it should be retrieving. My model has many relationships like this: Project has_many Nodes has_many GlobalConditions Node has_one Parent has_many Nodes has_many WeightingFactors through NodeFactors has_many Tags through NodeTags GlobalCondition has_many Nodes ( referenced by Id, rather than replicating tree ) WeightingFactor has_many Nodes through NodeFactors Tag has_many Nodes through NodeTags The whole system has something in the region of thirty types which optionally hang off one or many nodes in the tree. My question is: What can I do to retrieve and construct this data faster? Having worked a lot with .Net, if I was in a similar situation there, I would look at building up a Stored Procedure to pull everything out of the database in one go but I would prefer to keep my logic in the application and from what I can tell it would be hard to take the queried data and build ActiveRecord objects from it without losing their integrity, which would cause more problems than it solves. It has also occurred to me that I could bunch the data up and send some of it across asynchronously, which would not improve performance but would improve the user perception of performance. However if sections of the data appeared after page load that could also be quite confusing. I am wondering whether it would be a useful strategy to make everything aware of it's parent project, so that one could pull all the records for that project and then build up the relationships later, but given the ubiquity of complex trees in day to day programming life I wouldn't be surprised if there were some better design patterns or standard approaches to this type of situation that I am not well versed in.

    Read the article

  • Designing Content-Based ETL Process with .NET and SFDC

    - by Patrick
    As my firm makes the transition to using SFDC as our main operational system, we've spun together a couple of SFDC portals where we can post customer-specific documents to be viewed at will. As such, we've had the need for pseudo-ETL applications to be implemented that are able to extract metadata from the documents our analysts generate internally (most are industry-standard PDFs, XML, or MS Office formats) and place in networked "queue" folders. From there, our applications scoop of the queued documents and upload them to the appropriate SFDC CRM Content Library along with some select pieces of metadata. I've mostly used DbAmp to broker communication with SFDC (DbAmp is a Linked Server provider that allows you to use SQL conventions to interact with your SFDC Org data). I've been able to create [console] applications in C# that work pretty well, and they're usually structured something like this: static void Main() { // Load parameters from app.config. // Get documents from queue. var files = someInterface.GetFiles(someFilterOrRegexPattern); foreach (var file in files) { // Extract metadata from the file. // Validate some attributes of the file; add any validation errors to an in-memory // structure (e.g. List<ValidationErrors>). if (isValid) { // Upload using some wrapper for an ORM an someInterface.Upload(meta.Param1, meta.Param2, ...); } else { // Bounce the file } } // Report any validation errors (via message bus or SMTP or some such). } And that's pretty much it. Most of the time I wrap all these operations in a "Worker" class that takes the needed interfaces as constructor parameters. This approach has worked reasonably well, but I just get this feeling in my gut that there's something awful about it and would love some feedback. Is writing an ETL process as a C# Console app a bad idea? I'm also wondering if there are some design patterns that would be useful in this scenario that I'm clearly overlooking. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Socket.io v.9 with Actionscript

    - by funseiki
    I'm attempting to develop an online multiplayer game using Node.js for the server and Flash to display the client. I've been reading up a bit and have found quite a few recommendations for the socket.io library. I've also found a github project which exposes code to help facilitate communication between an Actionscript 3.0 client and a server using socket.io. The project I mentioned is a bit dated and doesn't seem to have support for the latest version of socket.io, so I was wondering if leveraging this framework (socket.io, that is) would be the most ideal way to go. I have found a simple project that uses the standard 'net' module for node.js, but because there a few options available, I'm a little lost as to which one to go with. I'm currently leaning towards just using the regular 'net' module as it is already familiar to me. Since much of the client is already coded up, I'd really like to not switch over to using the HTML5 canvas just yet (but using socket.io would make a transition in the future more friendly, I think?). Any advice/direction on this matter would be much appreciated, though I do realize that there may be no one right answer. Edit: To be more specific, are there any client-side socket.io frameworks available that allow for communication between an Actionscript 3.0 client and a socket.io server and are robust enough to support current/future versions of socket.io? If not, what are the alternatives?

    Read the article

  • Distributing an Android game with plugins via the market

    - by Peter Serwylo
    I'm new to Android development, and was wondering how the following could be achieved within the confines of the Android market as a distribution channel: One main application, which handles the main menu, networking, high scores, etc. Several games which can be launched from the main menu, which all work within the same eco system. The main application is not just a pseudo launcher for other games, these different games will share high scores and other achievements/preferences. In a traditional package management system such as apt, pacman or yum, this could be handled quite happily through dependencies. This does not appear to be possible via the Android market. The closest I've seen is when apps scan to check if the required app is installed, and if not, launches the market and asks the user to download the app. This sounds like a very messy solution. It also begs the question, would they download the game (plugin) first, which then downloads the main shell application? Or would they download the main shell application, and when they navigate to a menu item which says "Play game", then it scans for any installed games, and if none exist, redirects to the market? Also, I'm not even sure if it is possible to dig up the package from another application on the device, and start invoking classes from within (e.g. when you want to launch the game (plugin)) A final option is just to have a 3rd component which is a .jar that each game includes, which effectively contains the entire shell application. Then each game would appear to have the same menu, but it would become a nightmare as soon as you want to update the menu component and have to re-release each game. It would be especially worse if other people released games (plugins) based on the same framework and didn't update them. Is there any other options which I haven't thought of? Has anyone else solved this or seen a solution in any apps they've installed (doesn't have to be games)? cheers.

    Read the article

  • Ensuring non conflicting components in a modular system

    - by Hailwood
    So lets say we are creating a simple "modular system" framework. The bare bones might be the user management. But we want things like the Page Manager, the Blog, the Image Gallery to all be "optional" components. So a developer could install the Page Manager to allow their client to add a static home page and about page with content they can easily edit with a wysiwyg editor. The developer could then also install the Blog component to allow the client to add blog entries. The developer could then also install the Gallery component to allow the client to show off a bunch of images. The thing is, all these components are designed to be independent, so how do we go about ensuring they don't clash? E.g. ensuring the client doesn't create a /gallery page with the Page Manager and then wonder why the gallery stopped working, or the same issue with the Blog component, assuming we allow the users to customize the URL structure of the blog (because remember, the Page Manager doesn't necessarily have to be there, so we might not wan't our blog posts to be Date/Title formatted), likewise our clients aren't always going to be happy to have their pages under pages/title formatting. My core question here is, when building a modular system how to we ensure that the modules don't conflict without restricting functionality? Do we just leave it up to the clients/developer using the modules to ensure they get setup in a way that does not conflict?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  | Next Page >