Search Results

Search found 17940 results on 718 pages for 'algorithm design'.

Page 177/718 | < Previous Page | 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184  | Next Page >

  • Frames per Second and Updates per Second [on hold]

    - by matt murray
    So this is more a general resources question, as I am seeking knowledge on how best to conserve resources in a game (I am writing in Java, and please this is not a thread on what language I should write it in, I have already chosen Java) so that the updates and frames per second could be the highest they could be. In general I am just searching for any articles you may have, any personal experience, anything what so ever that could be of use to a pretty new Java game developer on the subject! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

    - by danip
    abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

    Read the article

  • Why does Clang/LLVM warn me about using default in a switch statement where all enumerated cases are covered?

    - by Thomas Catterall
    Consider the following enum and switch statement: typedef enum { MaskValueUno, MaskValueDos } testingMask; void myFunction(testingMask theMask) { switch theMask { case MaskValueUno: {}// deal with it case MaskValueDos: {}// deal with it default: {} //deal with an unexpected or uninitialized value } }; I'm an Objective-C programmer, but I've written this in pure C for a wider audience. Clang/LLVM 4.1 with -Weverything warns me at the default line: Default label in switch which covers all enumeration values Now, I can sort of see why this is there: in a perfect world, the only values entering in the argument theMask would be in the enum, so no default is necessary. But what if some hack comes along and throws an uninitialized int into my beautiful function? My function will be provided as a drop in library, and I have no control over what could go in there. Using default is a very neat way of handling this. Why do the LLVM gods deem this behaviour unworthy of their infernal device? Should I be preceding this by an if statement to check the argument?

    Read the article

  • Representing heightmaps, on disk and when drawing

    - by gardian06
    This is a conglomeration question when answering please specify which part you are addressing. I am looking at creating a maze type game that utilizes elevation. I have a few features I would like to have, but am unsure as to some of the implementation. I have done work doing fileIO maze generation (using a key to read the file, and then generate the level based on that file), but I am unsure how to think about this with elevation in the mix. I think height maps might be a good approach, but don't know how to represent them effectively. for a height map which is more beneficial XML(containing h[u,v] data and key definition), CSV (item1 is key reference, item2 is elevation), or another approach that I have not thought of yet? When it comes to placing the elevation values themselves what kind of deltah values are appropriate to have it noticeable at about a 60degree angle while not really effecting gravity driven physics (assuming some effect while moving up/down hill)? I am thinking of maybe going to procedural generation at some point, but am wondering if it is practical to have a procedurally generated grid (wall squares possibly same dimensions as the open space squares), or if designing to a thin wall open spaces is better? this decision will effect the amount of work need on the graphics end for uniform vs. irregular walls. EDIT: Game will be a elevation maze shooter. Levels/maps will be mazes with elevation the player has to negotiate. Elevations will have effects on "combat" vision, and movement.

    Read the article

  • What technologies are used for Game development now days?

    - by Monika Michael
    Whenever I ask a question about game development in an online forum I always get suggestions like learning line drawing algorithms, bit level image manipulation and video decompression etc. However looking at games like God of War 3, I find it hard to believe that these games could be developed using such low level techniques. The sheer awesomeness of such games defy any comprehensible(for me) programming methodology. Besides the gaming hardware is really a monster now days. So it stands to reason that the developers would work at a higher level of abstraction. What is the latest development methodology in the gaming industry? How is it that a team of 30-35 developers (of which most is management and marketing fluff) able to make such mind boggling games?

    Read the article

  • Where can I hire local programmers with very specific skillsets?

    - by Lostsoul
    I have been browsing the site and haven't found a exact fit to this question so I'll post it but if its already answered(since I'm sure its a common problem, then let me know). I have a business and want to create a totally different product in a different industry than I'm currently in, so I learned how to program and created a working prototype. I have a bit of savings and am getting some cash flow from my current business so I can go out and hire a developer(in the future hopefully it can be permenant but right now I just need a person willing to work on contract and code on weekends or their spare time and I just want to pay in cash instead of equity or future promises). At first I wasn't sure what kind of developer to hire but this question helped me understand I should target specific skills I need as opposed to general programmers. This poses a problem for me since general programmers are everywhere but if I want specific skills I'm unsure how to get them. I thought about a list of approaches but it doesn't feel complete or effective since it seems to be assuming good developers are actively looking. If it helps I want someone local(since this is my first developer hire) and looking for skills like cuda, hadoop, hbase, java and c. Any suggestions? As a FYI, I have been thinking of approaching it as: Go to meet ups for one or more skills I need. Use LinkedIn to find people with the skills I need Search for job postings that contain skills I need and then use linkedIn to reach out to that firms employees since many profiles on linkedin are not very updated or detailed but job postings generally are. Send postings to universities and maybe find a student who loves technology so much they learned these tools on their own. Post on job board. Not sure how successful it will be to post to monster. Use Craigslist, not sure if a highly skilled developer would go here for work. What am I missing? I could be wrong but it seems like good/smart/able developers aren't hunting for work non-stop(especially in this tech job market). Plus most successful people I know have work/life balance so I'm not sure if the best ones really care about code after work. Lastly, most of the skills I need aren't used in big corporations so not sure how aggressively smart developers at small shops look for work. I don’t really know any developers personally, so but should I be using the above plan or if they live balanced lives should I be looking outside of the regular resources(and instead focus on asking around my gym or my accountant or something)? Sorry, I'm making huge assumptions here, I guess because developers are a total mystery to me. I kind of wish Jane Goodall wrote a book on understanding developers social behaviour better :-p

    Read the article

  • How to do dependency Injection and conditional object creation based on type?

    - by Pradeep
    I have a service endpoint initialized using DI. It is of the following style. This end point is used across the app. public class CustomerService : ICustomerService { private IValidationService ValidationService { get; set; } private ICustomerRepository Repository { get; set; } public CustomerService(IValidationService validationService,ICustomerRepository repository) { ValidationService = validationService; Repository = repository; } public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } Now, With the changing requirements, there are going to be different types of customers (Legacy/Regular). The requirement is based on the type of the customer I have to validate and persist the customer in a different way (e.g. if Legacy customer persist to LegacyRepository). The wrong way to do this will be to break DI and do somthing like public void Save(CustomerDTO customer) { if(customer.Type == CustomerTypes.Legacy) { if (LegacyValidationService.Valid(customer)) LegacyRepository.Save(customer); } else { if (ValidationService.Valid(customer)) Repository.Save(customer); } } My options to me seems like DI all possible IValidationService and ICustomerRepository and switch based on type, which seems wrong. The other is to change the service signature to Save(IValidationService validation, ICustomerRepository repository, CustomerDTO customer) which is an invasive change. Break DI. Use the Strategy pattern approach for each type and do something like: validation= CustomerValidationServiceFactory.GetStratedgy(customer.Type); validation.Valid(customer) but now I have a static method which needs to know how to initialize different services. I am sure this is a very common problem, What is the right way to solve this without changing service signatures or breaking DI?

    Read the article

  • Developing a live video-streaming website

    - by cawecoy
    I'm a computer science student and know a little about some technology to start developing my website, like PHP, RubyOnRails and Python, and MySQL and PostgreSQL for Database. I need to know what are the best (secure, stable, low-price, etc) to get started, based on my business information: My website will be a live video-streaming one, similar to livestream.com We need to provide a secure service for our customers. They need to have a page to create and configure their own Live-Streaming-Videos, get statistics, etc. We work with Wowza Media Server ruuning on an Apache Server In addition, I would like to know some good practices for this kind of website development, as I am new to this. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to diagrammatically represent a system threading architecture?

    - by thegreendroid
    I am yet to find the perfect way to diagrammatically represent the overall threading architecture for a system (using UML or otherwise). I am after a diagramming technique that would show all the threads in a given system and how they interact with each other. There are a few similar questions - Drawing Thread Interaction, UML Diagrams of Multithreaded Applications and Intuitive UML Approach to Depict Threads but they don't fully answer my question. What are some of the techniques that you've found useful to depict the overall threading architecture for a system?

    Read the article

  • How to spawn a character at certain point and walk to a set point

    - by Robert H.
    I am making a game where I have a background image of a neighborhood. Each location has a different number of customers that are generated to walk on sidewalks. They all walk to a specific location (like a stand or cart that sells stuff), after they get to location I want them to interact with the cart. However, if another customer is already in a sale interaction then the others get in line in order of arrival. After the transaction the customers walk off screen. Any information on how I can do this and what game engine would be needed? Any one have any idea where I should go for this. I already have my game done up through Eclipse/Java without any game engine.

    Read the article

  • Identifying the best pattern

    - by Daniel Grillo
    I'm developing a software to program a device. I have some commands like Reset, Read_Version, Read_memory, Write_memory, Erase_memory. Reset and Read_Version are fixed. They don't need parameters. Read_memory and Erase_memory need the same parameters that are Length and Address. Write_memory needs Lenght, Address and Data. For each command, I have the same steps in sequence, that are something like this sendCommand, waitForResponse, treatResponse. I'm having difficulty to identify which pattern should I use. Factory, Template Method, Strategy or other pattern.

    Read the article

  • What can make peaceful game successful?

    - by Miro
    Today, the most successful games are action games like FPS, RPG, MMORPG... I'd like to make peaceful game, but i don't know how to attract people. I can make good graphics, but that's not the main thing that makes people like game more that couple of minutes. The content is important. In game styles mentioned in beginning are main content fight, kill others, make from yourself predator/the most powerful creature/player in the game. But what content can attract people in peaceful game?

    Read the article

  • Which is the most practical way to add functionality to this piece of code?

    - by Adam Arold
    I'm writing an open source library which handles hexagonal grids. It mainly revolves around the HexagonalGrid and the Hexagon class. There is a HexagonalGridBuilder class which builds the grid which contains Hexagon objects. What I'm trying to achieve is to enable the user to add arbitrary data to each Hexagon. The interface looks like this: public interface Hexagon extends Serializable { // ... other methods not important in this context <T> void setSatelliteData(T data); <T> T getSatelliteData(); } So far so good. I'm writing another class however named HexagonalGridCalculator which adds some fancy pieces of computation to the library like calculating the shortest path between two Hexagons or calculating the line of sight around a Hexagon. My problem is that for those I need the user to supply some data for the Hexagon objects like the cost of passing through a Hexagon, or a boolean flag indicating whether the object is transparent/passable or not. My question is how should I implement this? My first idea was to write an interface like this: public interface HexagonData { void setTransparent(boolean isTransparent); void setPassable(boolean isPassable); void setPassageCost(int cost); } and make the user implement it but then it came to my mind that if I add any other functionality later all code will break for those who are using the old interface. So my next idea is to add annotations like @PassageCost, @IsTransparent and @IsPassable which can be added to fields and when I'm doing the computation I can look for the annotations in the satelliteData supplied by the user. This looks flexible enough if I take into account the possibility of later changes but it uses reflection. I have no benchmark of the costs of using annotations so I'm a bit in the dark here. I think that in 90-95% of the cases the efficiency is not important since most users wont't use a grid where this is significant but I can imagine someone trying to create a grid with a size of 5.000.000.000 X 5.000.000.000. So which path should I start walking on? Or are there some better alternatives? Note: These ideas are not implemented yet so I did not pay too much attention to good names.

    Read the article

  • Can you point me to a nontrivial strategy pattern implementation?

    - by Eugen Martynov
    We are faced implementing a registration workflow with many branches. There are three main flows which in some conditions lead to one another. Each flow has at least four different steps; some steps interact with the server, and every step adds more information to the state. Also the requirement is to have it persistent between sessions, so if the user closes the app (this is a mobile app), it will restore the process from the last completed step with the state from the previous session. I think this could benefit from the use of the strategy pattern, but I've never had to implement it for such a complex case. Does anyone know of any examples in open source or articles from which I could find inspiration? Preferably the examples would be from a live/working/stable application. I'm interested in Java implementation mostly; we are developing for Java mobile phones: android, blackberry and J2ME. We have an SDK which is quite well separated from platform specific implementations, but examples in C++, C#, Objective-C or Python would be acceptable.

    Read the article

  • How to have operations with character/items in binary with concrete operations?

    - by Piperoman
    I have the next problem. A item can have a lot of states: NORMAL = 0000000 DRY = 0000001 HOT = 0000010 BURNING = 0000100 WET = 0001000 COLD = 0010000 FROZEN = 0100000 POISONED= 1000000 A item can have some states at same time but not all of them Is impossible to be dry and wet at same time. If you COLD a WET item, it turns into FROZEN. If you HOT a WET item, it turns into NORMAL A item can be BURNING and POISON Etc. I have tried to set binary flags to states, and use AND to combine different states, checking before if it is possible or not to do it, or change to another status. Does there exist a concrete approach to solve this problem efficiently without having an interminable switch that checks every state with every new state? It is relatively easy to check 2 different states, but if there exists a third state it is not trivial to do.

    Read the article

  • Information Spilling Across Object Boundaries

    - by Winston Ewert
    Many times my business objects tend to have situations where information needs to cross object boundaries too often. When doing OO, we want information to be in one object and as much as possible all code dealing with that information should be in that object. However, business rules do not follow this principle giving me trouble. As an example suppose that we have an Order which has a number of OrderItems which refers to an InventoryItem which has a price. I invoke Order.GetTotal() which sums the result of OrderItem.GetPrice() which multiples a quantity by InventoryItem.GetPrice(). So far so good. But then we find out that some items are sold with a two for one deal. We can handle this by having OrderItem.GetPrice() do something like InventoryItem.GetPrice( quantity ) and letting InventoryItem deal with this. However, then we find out that the two-for-one deal only lasts for a particular time period. This time period needs to be based on the date of the order. Now we change OrderItem.GetPrice() to be InventoryItem.GetPrice( quatity, order.GetDate() ) But then we need to support different prices depending on how long the customer has been in the system: InventoryItem.GetPrice( quantity, order.GetDate(), order.GetCustomer() ) But then it turns out that the two-for-one deals apply not just to buying multiple of the same inventory item but multiple for any item in a InventoryCategory. At this point we throw up our hands and just give the InventoryItem the order item and allow it to travel over the object reference graph via accessors to get the information its needs: InventoryItem.GetPrice( this ) TL;DR I want to have coupling in objects, but business rules often force me to access information from all over the place in order to make particular decisions. Are there good techniques for dealing with this? Do others find the same problem?

    Read the article

  • What are good reasons to use explicit interface implementation for the sole purpose of hiding members?

    - by Nathanus
    During one of my studies into the intricacies of C#, I came across an interesting passage concerning explicit interface implementation. While this syntax is quite helpful when you need to resolve name clashes, you can use explicit interface implementation simply to hide more "advanced" members from the object level. The difference between allowing the use of object.method() or requiring the casting of ((Interface)object).method() seems like mean-spirited obfuscation to my inexperienced eyes. The text noted that this will hide the method from Intellisense at the object level, but why would you want to do that if it was not necessary to avoid name conflicts?

    Read the article

  • Get Info From Database, or Build Inferred Info?

    - by Zaemz
    Does it make more sense to store and retrieve properties or information directly related to an item in a database, or, say in such a case that a product's ID could describe information about it, should the information be gathered from that? Example: Item SKU -- 4HBU12 4 - is the number of motors H - the voltage B - the color, blue U - the model 12 - the length Should I store those individual attributes as well as the SKU, or should I store only the SKU and build the attributes from it?

    Read the article

  • Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

    - by Lumirris
    I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

    Read the article

  • What layer to introduce human readable error messages?

    - by MrLane
    One of the things that I have never been happy with on any project I have worked on over the years and have really not been able to resolve myself is exactly at what tier in an application should human readable error information be retrieved for display to a user. A common approach that has worked well has been to return strongly typed/concrete "result objects" from the methods on the public surface of the business tier/API. A method on the interface may be: public ClearUserAccountsResult ClearUserAccounts(ClearUserAccountsParam param); And the result class implementation: public class ClearUserAccountsResult : IResult { public readonly List<Account> ClearedAccounts{get; set;} public readonly bool Success {get; set;} // Implements IResult public readonly string Message{get; set;} // Implements IResult, human readable // Constructor implemented here to set readonly properties... } This works great when the API needs to be exposed over WCF as the result object can be serialized. Again this is only done on the public surface of the API/business tier. The error message can also be looked up from the database, which means it can be changed and localized. However, it has always been suspect to me, this idea of returning human readable information from the business tier like this, partly because what constitutes the public surface of the API may change over time...and it may be the case that the API will need to be reused by other API components in the future that do not need the human readable string messages (and looking them up from a database would be an expensive waste). I am thinking a better approach is to keep the business objects free from such result objects and keep them simple and then retrieve human readable error strings somewhere closer to the UI layer or only in the UI itself, but I have two problems here: 1) The UI may be a remote client (Winforms/WPF/Silverlight) or an ASP.NET web application hosted on another server. In these cases the UI will have to fetch the error strings from the server. 2) Often there are multiple legitimate modes of failure. If the business tier becomes so vague and generic in the way it returns errors there may not be enough information exposed publicly to tell what the error actually was: i.e: if a method has 3 modes of legitimate failure but returns a boolean to indicate failure, you cannot work out what the appropriate message to display to the user should be. I have thought about using failure enums as a substitute, they can indicate a specific error that can be tested for and coded against. This is sometimes useful within the business tier itself as a way of passing via method returns the specifics of a failure rather than just a boolean, but it is not so good for serialization scenarios. Is there a well worn pattern for this? What do people think? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Breakout ball collision detection, bouncing against the walls

    - by Sri Harsha Chilakapati
    I'm currently trying to program a breakout game to distribute it as an example game for my own game engine. http://game-engine-for-java.googlecode.com/ But the problem here is that I can't get the bouncing condition working properly. Here's what I'm using. public void collision(GObject other){ if (other instanceof Bat || other instanceof Block){ bounce(); } else if (other instanceof Stone){ other.destroy(); bounce(); } //Breakout.HIT.play(); } And here's by bounce() method public void bounce(){ boolean left = false; boolean right = false; boolean up = false; boolean down = false; if (dx < 0) { left = true; } else if (dx > 0) { right = true; } if (dy < 0) { up = true; } else if (dy > 0) { down = true; } if (left && up) { dx = -dx; } if (left && down) { dy = -dy; } if (right && up) { dx = -dx; } if (right && down) { dy = -dy; } } The ball bounces the bat and blocks but when the block is on top of the ball, it won't bounce and moves upwards out of the game. What I'm missing? Is there anything to implement? Please help me.. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Inheritance vs composition in this example

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm wondering about the differences between inheritance and composition examined with concrete code relevant arguments. In particular my example was Inheritance: class Do: def do(self): self.doA() self.doB() def doA(self): pass def doB(self): pass class MyDo(Do): def doA(self): print("A") def doB(self): print("B") x=MyDo() vs Composition: class Do: def __init__(self, a, b): self.a=a self.b=b def do(self): self.a.do() self.b.do() x=Do(DoA(), DoB()) (Note for composition I'm missing code so it's not actually shorter) Can you name particular advantages of one or the other? I'm think of: composition is useful if you plan to reuse DoA() in another context inheritance seems easier; no additional references/variables/initialization method doA can access internal variable (be it a good or bad thing :) ) inheritance groups logic A and B together; even though you could equally introduce a grouped delegate object inheritance provides a preset class for the users; with composition you'd have to encapsule the initialization in a factory so that the user does have to assemble the logic and the skeleton ... Basically I'd like to examine the implications of inheritance vs composition. I heard often composition is prefered, but I'd like to understand that by example. Of course I can always start with one and refactor later to the other.

    Read the article

  • what making a good soundtrack for social game

    - by Maged
    there are many successful social games in Facebook and other social sites like brain buddies, who has the biggest brain and word challenge.both of them have a great soundtrack while playing and in the beginning of the game . my question is how to find a good soundtrack or what's i should look for to find a good soundtrack like this that's help to attract the user specially for games that need concentration ?

    Read the article

  • Updating an Entity through a Service

    - by GeorgeK
    I'm separating my software into three main layers (maybe tiers would be a better term): Presentation ('Views') Business logic ('Services' and 'Repositories') Data access ('Entities' (e.g. ActiveRecords)) What do I have now? In Presentation, I use read-only access to Entities, returned from Repositories or Services, to display data. $banks = $banksRegistryService->getBanksRepository()->getBanksByCity( $city ); $banksViewModel = new PaginatedList( $banks ); // some way to display banks; // example, not real code I find this approach quite efficient in terms of performance and code maintanability and still safe as long as all write operations (create, update, delete) are preformed through a Service: namespace Service\BankRegistry; use Service\AbstractDatabaseService; use Service\IBankRegistryService; use Model\BankRegistry\Bank; class Service extends AbstractDatabaseService implements IBankRegistryService { /** * Registers a new Bank * * @param string $name Bank's name * @param string $bik Bank's Identification Code * @param string $correspondent_account Bank's correspondent account * * @return Bank */ public function registerBank( $name, $bik, $correspondent_account ) { $bank = new Bank(); $bank -> setName( $name ) -> setBik( $bik ) -> setCorrespondentAccount( $correspondent_account ); if( null === $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank() ) $this->setDefaultBank( $bank ); $this->getEntityManager()->persist( $bank ); return $bank; } /** * Makes the $bank system's default bank * * @param Bank $bank * @return IBankRegistryService */ public function setDefaultBank( Bank $bank ) { $default_bank = $this->getBanksRepository()->getDefaultBank(); if( null !== $default_bank ) $default_bank->setDefault( false ); $bank->setDefault( true ); return $this; } } Where am I stuck? I'm struggling about how to update certain fields in Bank Entity. Bad solution #1: Making a series of setters in Service for each setter in Bank; - seems to be quite reduntant, increases Service interface complexity and proportionally decreases it's simplicity - something to avoid if you care about code maitainability. I try to follow KISS and DRY principles. Bad solution #2: Modifying Bank directly through it's native setters; - really bad. If you'll ever need to move modification into the Service, it will be pain. Business logic should remain in Business logic layer. Plus, there are plans on logging all of the actions and maybe even involve user permissions (perhaps, through decorators) in future, so all modifications should be made only through the Service. Possible good solution: Creating an updateBank( Bank $bank, $array_of_fields_to_update) method; - makes the interface as simple as possible, but there is a problem: one should not try to manually set isDefault flag on a Bank, this operation should be performed through setDefaultBank method. It gets even worse when you have relations that you don't want to be directly modified. Of course, you can just limit the fields that can be modified by this method, but how do you tell method's user what they can and cannot modify? Exceptions?

    Read the article

  • Use Those Schemas, People!

    - by BuckWoody
    Database Schemas are just containers – they aren’t users or anything else – think of a sub-directory on the hard drive. In early versions of SQL Server we “hid” schemas, placing all objects under “dbo”, which gave the erroneous perception that Schemas are users. In SQL Server 2005, we “un-hid” or re-introduced schemas within the database. Users can have a default schema (a place where their new objects go), you can add new schemas and transfer objects between them, and they have many other benefits. But I still see a lot of applications, developed by shops I know as well as vendors, that don’t make use of a Schema. Everything is piled under dbo. I completely understand this – since permissions can be granted to a schema, they feel a lot like a user, so it’s just easier not to worry about both users and schemas when you create a database. But if you’ll use them properly you can make your application more understandable and portable. You should at least take a few minutes and read more about them – you owe it to your users: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms190387.aspx Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184  | Next Page >