Search Results

Search found 20733 results on 830 pages for 'ui design'.

Page 177/830 | < Previous Page | 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184  | Next Page >

  • Anemic Domain Model, Business Logic and DataMapper (PHP)

    - by sunwukung
    I've implemented a rudimentary ORM layer based on DataMapper (I don't want to use a full blown ORM like Propel/Doctrine - for anything beyond simple fetch/save ops I prefer to access the data directly layer using a SQL abstraction layer). Following the DataMapper pattern, I've endeavoured to keep all persistence operations in the Mapper - including the location of related entities. My Entities have access to their Mapper, although I try not to call Mapper logic from the Entity interface (although this would be simple enough). The result is: // get a mapper and produce an entity $ProductMapper = $di->get('product_mapper'); $Product = $ProductMapper->find('[email protected]','email'); //.. mutaute some values.. save $ProductMapper->save($Product) // uses __get to trigger relation acquisition $Manufacturer = $Product->manufacturer; I've read some articles regarding the concept of an Anemic Domain model, i.e. a Model that does not contain any "business logic". When demonstrating the sort of business logic ideally suited to a Domain Model, however, acquiring related data items is a common example. Therefore I wanted to ask this question: Is persistence logic appropriate in Domain Model objects?

    Read the article

  • Level Representation in a 2D Game

    - by meszar.imola
    I would like to create a 2D game, where a character should move on a stage/level. My stage would be static, constructed some little cubes, similar to the well-known Mario game: some of the elements should represent an element of the way where the character can step, but if the element is missing, the character should fall. My problem is, how to represent this programmatically? My first thought was to represent the stage with a vector, which should contain boolean elements, depending on the state of the element on the stage - if it's missing or not. But this means, I have to verify at my character's x or y position change if it has a stage element under or not (if not, to simulate the falling of the character) - I think it is not the best practice, it's not the beautiful solution. Can you help me with some advice, how to represent the stage?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding null in a controller

    - by Kevin Burke
    I'm trying to work through how to write this code. def get(params): """ Fetch a user's details, or 404 """ user = User.fetch_by_id(params['id']) if not user: abort(404) # Render some template for the user... What's the best way to handle the case where the lookup fails? One principle says you should avoid returning null values from functions. These lead to mistakes and AttributeErrors etc. later on in the file. Another idea is to have fetch_by_id raise a ValueError or similar if no user exists with that id. However there's a general principle that you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow, either, which doesn't help much. What could be done better in this case?

    Read the article

  • iOS + cocos2d: how to account for sprite's position for the different device dimensions in an universal app?

    - by fuzzlog
    All the questions I've seen regarding iOS universal apps (with or without cocos2d) deal with the "how to add graphics to a universal app". My question is, how does the code need to be written to ensure that the sprites appear appropriately on the screen (given that an iPhone 5's resolution is not proportional to an iPad's resolution)? Is it just a bunch of "if" statements and duplicate code or do iOS/cocos2d provide common function calls that will place the sprites at an appropriate position?

    Read the article

  • Is it feasible and useful to auto-generate some code of unit tests?

    - by skiwi
    Earlier today I have come up with an idea, based upon a particular real use case, which I would want to have checked for feasability and usefulness. This question will feature a fair chunk of Java code, but can be applied to all languages running inside a VM, and maybe even outside. While there is real code, it uses nothing language-specific, so please read it mostly as pseudo code. The idea Make unit testing less cumbersome by adding in some ways to autogenerate code based on human interaction with the codebase. I understand this goes against the principle of TDD, but I don't think anyone ever proved that doing TDD is better over first creating code and then immediatly therafter the tests. This may even be adapted to be fit into TDD, but that is not my current goal. To show how it is intended to be used, I'll copy one of my classes here, for which I need to make unit tests. public class PutMonsterOnFieldAction implements PlayerAction { private final int handCardIndex; private final int fieldMonsterIndex; public PutMonsterOnFieldAction(final int handCardIndex, final int fieldMonsterIndex) { this.handCardIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(handCardIndex, "handCardIndex"); this.fieldMonsterIndex = Arguments.requirePositiveOrZero(fieldMonsterIndex, "fieldCardIndex"); } @Override public boolean isActionAllowed(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player, "player"); Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity()) { return false; } if (fieldMonsterIndex >= field.getMonsterCapacity()) { return false; } if (field.hasMonster(fieldMonsterIndex)) { return false; } if (!(hand.get(handCardIndex) instanceof MonsterCard)) { return false; } return true; } @Override public void performAction(final Player player) { Objects.requireNonNull(player); if (!isActionAllowed(player)) { throw new PlayerActionNotAllowedException(); } Hand hand = player.getHand(); Field field = player.getField(); field.setMonster(fieldMonsterIndex, (MonsterCard)hand.play(handCardIndex)); } } We can observe the need for the following tests: Constructor test with valid input Constructor test with invalid inputs isActionAllowed test with valid input isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs performAction test with valid input performAction test with invalid inputs My idea mainly focuses on the isActionAllowed test with invalid inputs. Writing these tests is not fun, you need to ensure a number of conditions and you check whether it really returns false, this can be extended to performAction, where an exception needs to be thrown in that case. The goal of my idea is to generate those tests, by indicating (through GUI of IDE hopefully) that you want to generate tests based on a specific branch. The implementation by example User clicks on "Generate code for branch if (handCardIndex >= hand.getCapacity())". Now the tool needs to find a case where that holds. (I haven't added the relevant code as that may clutter the post ultimately) To invalidate the branch, the tool needs to find a handCardIndex and hand.getCapacity() such that the condition >= holds. It needs to construct a Player with a Hand that has a capacity of at least 1. It notices that the capacity private int of Hand needs to be at least 1. It searches for ways to set it to 1. Fortunately it finds a constructor that takes the capacity as an argument. It uses 1 for this. Some more work needs to be done to succesfully construct a Player instance, involving the creation of objects that have constraints that can be seen by inspecting the source code. It has found the hand with the least capacity possible and is able to construct it. Now to invalidate the test it will need to set handCardIndex = 1. It constructs the test and asserts it to be false (the returned value of the branch) What does the tool need to work? In order to function properly, it will need the ability to scan through all source code (including JDK code) to figure out all constraints. Optionally this could be done through the javadoc, but that is not always used to indicate all constraints. It could also do some trial and error, but it pretty much stops if you cannot attach source code to compiled classes. Then it needs some basic knowledge of what the primitive types are, including arrays. And it needs to be able to construct some form of "modification trees". The tool knows that it needs to change a certain variable to a different value in order to get the correct testcase. Hence it will need to list all possible ways to change it, without using reflection obviously. What this tool will not replace is the need to create tailored unit tests that tests all kinds of conditions when a certain method actually works. It is purely to be used to test methods when they invalidate constraints. My questions: Is creating such a tool feasible? Would it ever work, or are there some obvious problems? Would such a tool be useful? Is it even useful to automatically generate these testcases at all? Could it be extended to do even more useful things? Does, by chance, such a project already exist and would I be reinventing the wheel? If not proven useful, but still possible to make such thing, I will still consider it for fun. If it's considered useful, then I might make an open source project for it depending on the time. For people searching more background information about the used Player and Hand classes in my example, please refer to this repository. At the time of writing the PutMonsterOnFieldAction has not been uploaded to the repo yet, but this will be done once I'm done with the unit tests.

    Read the article

  • Logic or Algorithm to solve this problem [closed]

    - by jade
    I have two lists. List1 {a,b,c,d,e} and List2 {f,g,h,i,j} The relation between the two list is as follows a->g,a->h,h->c,h->d,d->i,d->j Now I have these two lists displayed. Based on the relation above on selecting element a from List1, List2 shows g,h. On selecting h from List2, in List1 c,d are shown in List1. On selecting d from List1 it shows i,j in List2. How to trace back to initial state by deselecting the elements in reverse order in which they have been selected?

    Read the article

  • A few questions about how JavaScript works

    - by KayoticSully
    I originally posted on Stack Overflow and was told I might get some better answers here. I have been looking deeply into JavaScript lately to fully understand the language and have a few nagging questions that I can not seem to find answers to (Specifically dealing with Object Oriented programming. I know JavaScript is meant to be used in an OOP manner I just want to understand it for the sake of completeness). Assuming the following code: function TestObject() { this.fA = function() { // do stuff } this.fB = testB; function testB() { // do stuff } } TestObject.prototype = { fC : function { // do stuff } } What is the difference between functions fA and fB? Do they behave exactly the same in scope and potential ability? Is it just convention or is one way technically better or proper? If there is only ever going to be one instance of an object at any given time, would adding a function to the prototype such as fC even be worthwhile? Is there any benefit to doing so? Is the prototype only really useful when dealing with many instances of an object or inheritance? And what is technically the "proper" way to add methods to the prototype the way I have above or calling TestObject.prototype.functionName = function(){} every time? I am looking to keep my JavaScript code as clean and readable as possible but am also very interested in what the proper conventions for Objects are in the language. I come from a Java and PHP background and am trying to not make any assumptions about how JavaScript works since I know it is very different being prototype based. Also are there any definitive JavaScript style guides or documentation about how JavaScript operates at a low level? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Creating a new variable versus assigning an existing one

    - by rwallace
    Which is more common, creating a new variable versus assigning an existing variable (field, array element etc - anything that syntactically uses the assignment operator)? The reason I ask is that I'm designing a new language, and wondering which of these two operations should get the shorter syntax. It's not intended to be a pure functional language, or the question wouldn't arise, so I'd ideally like to count usage across large existing code bases in procedural and object-oriented languages like C, C++ and Java, though as far as I can see there isn't an easy way to do this automatically, and going by memory and eyeball, neither is obviously more common than the other.

    Read the article

  • IoC containers and service locator pattern

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am trying to get an understanding of Inversion of Control and the dos and donts of this. Of all the articles I read, there is one by Mark Seemann (which is widely linked to in SO) which strongly asks folks not to use the service locator pattern. Then somewhere along the way, I came across this article by Ken where he helps us build our own IoC. I noticed that is is nothing but an implementation of service locator pattern. Questions: Is my observation correct that this implementation is the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is yes, then Do all IoC containers (like Autofac) use the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is no, then why is this differen? Is there any other pattern (other than DI) for inversion of control?

    Read the article

  • Is it relevant to warn about truncating real constants to 32 bits?

    - by zneak
    I'm toying around with LLVM and looking at what it would take to make yet another strongly-typed language, and now that I'm around the syntax, I've noticed that it seems to be a pet peeve of strongly typed language to warn people that their constants won't fit inside a float: // both in Java and C# float foo = 3.2; // error: implicitly truncating a double into a float // or something along these lines Why doesn't this work in Java and C#? I know it's easy to add the f after the 3.2, but is it really doing anything useful? Must I really be that aware that I'm using single-precision reals instead of double-precision reals? Maybe I'm just missing something (which, basically, is why I'm asking). Note that float foo = [const] is not the same thing as float foo = [double variable], where requiring the cast seems normal to me.

    Read the article

  • New Project Starting. Got Gas?

    - by merrillaldrich
    “Storage is just like gasoline,” said a fellow DBA at the office the other day. This DBA, Mike is his name, is one of the smartest people I know, so I pressed him, in my subtle and erudite way, to elaborate. “Um, whut?” I said. “Yeah. Now that everything is shared – VMs or consolidated SQL Servers and shared storage – if you want to do a big project, like, say, drive to Vegas, you better fill the car with gas. Drive back and forth to work every day? Gas. Same for storage.” This was a light-bulb-above-my-head...(read more)

    Read the article

  • I have an "amoeba" game mechanic. Any idea on how to implement it?

    - by Jason
    Outside of a tetris clone, a crappy 2D top-down shooter, and some messing around with stuff like Unity and Flixel, I realize that I have yet to complete a single, polished, bells-and-whistles game. I want to change this, and I have an idea for my next project. The idea is that you're an amoeba. Amoebas have these eye-like cores (or something like that, I don't know biology), and you have two of 'em. You control one with WASD and the other with IJKL. There has to be a constant radius of stuff around each of the cores: And the area of the amoeba has to stay constant. So if you move a core in one direction, you increase the amoeba's area, but that increase is compensated by a decrease somewhere else: Aaaaaand I'd like to implement a vagination mechanic. You absorb things by engulfing them, like a boss. Maybe even an extra core, or a needle that pops you and causes all your inner stuff to start gushing out: But here's the problem: I don't know how to make this. However, I would like some ideas on how to implement it. Should I explore physics libraries like Box2D? Or maybe something involving fluid physics? Any help would be much appreciated. P.S. Feel free to steal this idea. I have plenty of ideas. If you do, please tell me how you made it so I can try it myself.

    Read the article

  • Necessary Infrastructure for large project with many components communicating through IPCs

    - by jluzwick
    I have a fairly in depth question which probably doesn't have an exact answer. As a software engineer, I am usually tasked with working on a program or project with minimal understanding of how other components or programs in the project interact with each other. When one program fails in a sea of multiple components and processes, what infrastructure elements are necessary to ensure that the problem can be accurately tracked to the violating application? More specifically, what infrastructure elements should be necessary for this large project and which are optional but very helpful. One such example I can think of is some form of a common logging infrastructure that allows for a developer or tester to easily browse through a log that contains numerous components for messages that might allude to the culprit program along with a "trail" of what happened before the issue occurred. I'm thinking of something similar to Androids alogcat tool. These necessary infrastructure elements should be language-agnostic. While these elements should be understood by all engineers on the team in question, which elements should be understood at great detail by the technical system engineers and what should the individual software engineers be responsible for adding to their tools to allow for such infrastructures to take hold? Please feel free to ask for clarification if something does not make sense as I understand this question is very broad and needs some refinement. I will refine as necessary from the answers and comments I receive. Thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?

    - by Daniel Hilgarth
    Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern: public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler { public bool CanHandle(object command) { return command is FooCommand; } public void Handle(object command) { var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command; // Do something with fooCommand } } Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle without verifying the command via CanHandle, the code in Handle throws an exception. However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle this can be a whole range of different exceptions. The following implementation would check CanHandle again in Handle and throw a descriptive exception: public void Handle(object command) { if(!CanHandle(command)) throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first"); // actual implementation of handling the command. } This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive. It has the disadvantage that CanHandle is called twice for "good" clients. Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?

    Read the article

  • Programming Languages

    - by Shannon
    I realize this will be a very vague question, but please bear with me. I have a concept for an open-world game, hand to hand combat, with a fairly open storyline, but there is an issue. I'm not sure which programming language to use, as I'm fairly new to programming. I am considering c++, but I would like to hear your opinions on which language you believe would support this type of game most efficiently. Pros and cons would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Should an object know its own ID?

    - by xenoterracide
    obj.id seems fairly common and also seems to fall within the range of something an object could know about itself. I find myself asking why should my object know its own id? It doesn't seem to have a reason to have it? One of the main reason for it existing is retrieve it, and so my repositories need to know it, and thus use it for database interaction. I also once encountered a problem where I wanted to serialize an object to JSON for a RESTful API where the id did not seem to fit in the payload, but only the URI and including it in the object made that more difficult. Should an object know it's own id? why or why not?

    Read the article

  • Using 'new' in a projection?

    - by davenewza
    I wish to project a collection from one type (Something) to another type (SomethingElse). Yes, this is a very open-eneded question, but which of the two options below do you prefer? Creating a new instance using new: var result = query.Select(something => new SomethingElse(something)); Using a factory: var result = query.Select(something => SomethingElse.FromSomething(something)); When I think of a projection, I generally think of it as a conversion. Using new gives me this idea that I'm creating new objects during a conversion, which doesn't feel right. Semantically, SomethingElse.FromSomething() most definitely fits better. Although, the second option does require addition code to setup a factory, which could become unnecessarily compulsive.

    Read the article

  • Finding the best practice for a game simulating tool

    - by Tougheart
    I'm studying Java right now, and I'm thinking of this tool as my practice project. The game is "League of Legends" in case anyone knows it, I'm not actually simulating the game as in simulating game play, I'm just trying to create a tool that can compare different champions to each other based on their own abilities and items bought inside the game. The game basics are: Every player has a champion in a team of 5 players playing against another team. Each champion has a different set of abilities (usually 4) that s/he uses to do damage to opposing champions. Each champion gets stronger by buying different items, increasing the attack it deals or decreasing the damage received. What I want to do is to create a tool to be used outside the game enabling players to try out different builds for their champions and compare the figures against other champions they usually fight against. The goal is to enable players get a deeper understanding of the different item combinations (builds) that can be used during the games, instead of trying them out in real games which can be somehow very time consuming. What I'm stuck at is the best practice I should follow to make this possible using Java, I can't figure out which classes should inherit from which, should I make champions and items specs in the code or extracted from other files, specially that I'm talking about hundreds of items and champions to use in that tool. I'm self studying Java, and I don't have much practice at it, so I would really appreciate any broad guidelines regarding this, and sorry if my question doesn't fit here, I tried to follow the rules. English isn't my native language, so I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I would be more than happy to explain anything that's not understood.

    Read the article

  • Creating meaningful and engaging quests

    - by user384918
    Kill X number of monsters. Gather Y number of items (usually by killing X number of monsters). Deliver this NPC's package to this other NPC who is far far away. etc. Yeah. These quests are easy to implement, easy to complete, but also very boring after the first few times. It's kind of disingenuous to call them quests really; they're more like chores or errands. What ideas for quests have people seen that were well designed, immersive, and rewarding? What specific things did the developers do that made it so? What are some ideas you would use (or have used) to make quests more interesting?

    Read the article

  • correct pattern to handle a lot of entities in a game

    - by lezebulon
    In my game I usually have every NPC / items etc being derived from a base class "entity". Then they all basically have a virtual method called "update" that I would class for each entity in my game at every frame. I am assuming that this is a pattern that has a lot of downsides. What are some other ways to manage different "game objects" throughout the game? Are there other well-known patterns for this? My game is a RPG if that changes anything

    Read the article

  • What kind of graphics would you like better? [ pictures ] [closed]

    - by Roger Travis
    I am looking forward to make an android game, something angrybirds style. I've already made my own engine and now have to decide what kind of graphics should I make. It could be either realistic, like that or a doodle-style like this Right now the first one looks more appealing to me... on the other hand, doodle-graphics are very easy to draw and their transparency doesn't seem to slow down the engine much. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern or logical structure I can follow for Event Log Numbers?

    - by makerofthings7
    What are some ideas or structure I can use when assigning EventID to events that will be saved to the Event Log? Some options I've considered Sequential (0... int.Max) Multiple of 10, where the "0" is replaced with how noisy the debugLevel is set. xxx0 may represent exceptions, critical information, start, stop etc. ...? What numbering approach gives you the most insight when a user describes the event in an email or phone? What is the most useful to support staff?

    Read the article

  • How to name multi-setter?

    - by IAdapter
    I'm struggling with how to name this method, I don't like the "set" prefix, because I feel it should be reserved for normal "dumb" setters and some tools might not like it (i did not check it in checkstyle, pmd, etc., but I got a feeling they won't like it.) for example (in java, but I feel its language agnostic) public void setField1Field2(String field1, String field2) { this.field1 = field1; this.field2 = field2; } The only purpose of this method is ONLY to set, this method is needed and cannot be joined with any other (because of framework used).

    Read the article

  • Structuring cascading properties - parent only or parent + entire child graph?

    - by SB2055
    I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

    Read the article

  • Removing an element not currently in a list: ValueError?

    - by Izkata
    This is something that's bothered me for a while, and I can't figure out why anyone would ever want the language to act like this: In [1]: foo = [1, 2, 3] In [2]: foo.remove(2) ; foo # okay Out[2]: [1, 3] In [3]: foo.remove(4) ; foo # not okay? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ValueError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/izkata/<ipython console> in <module>() ValueError: list.remove(x): x not in list If the value is already not in the list, then I'd expect a silent success. Goal already achieved. Is there any real reason this was done this way? It forces awkward code that should be much shorter: for item in items_to_remove: try: thingamabob.remove(item) except ValueError: pass Instead of simply: for item in items_to_remove: thingamabob.remove(item) As an aside, no, I can't just use set(thingamabob).difference(items_to_remove) because I do have to retain both order and duplicates.

    Read the article

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