Search Results

Search found 3642 results on 146 pages for 'architectural patterns'.

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

Page 2/146 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • The worst anti-patterns you have came across.

    - by ?????????
    What are the worst anti-patterns you have came across in your career as a programmer? I'm mostly involved in java, although it is probably language-independent. I think the worst of it is what I call the main anti-pattern. It means program consisting of single, extremely big class (sometimes accompanied with a pair of little classes) which contains all logic. Typically with a big loop in which all business logic is contained, sometimes having tens of thousands of lines of code.

    Read the article

  • Javascript Implementation Patterns for Server-side MVC Websites

    - by tmo256
    I'm looking for information on common patterns for initializing and executing Javascript page by page in a "traditional" server-side MVC website architecture. A few months ago, my development team began, but abandoned, a major re-architecture of our company's primary web app, including a full front-end redesign. In the process, there was some debate about the architecture of the Javascript in the current version of the site, and whether it fit into a clear, modern design pattern. Now I've returned to the process of overhauling the front end of this and several other MVC websites (Ruby on Rails and MVC.net) to implement a responsive framework (Bootstrap), and in the process will again need to review then revamp and update a lot of Javascript. These web applications are NOT single-page Javascript applications (in fact, we are ripping out a lot of Ajax) or designed to require a Javascript MVC pattern; these apps are basically brochure, catalog and administrative sites that follow a server-side MVC pattern. The vast majority of the Javascript required is behavioral, pre-built plugins (JQuery and Bootstrap, et al) that execute on specific DOM nodes. I'm going to give a very brief (as brief as I can be) run-down of the current architecture only in order to illustrate the scope and type of paradigm I'm talking about. Hopefully, it will help you understand the nature of the patterns I'm looking for, but I'm not looking for commentary on the specifics of this code. What I've done in the past is relatively straight-forward and easy to maintain, but, as mentioned above, some of the other developers don't like the current architecture. Currently, on document ready, I execute whatever global Javascript needs to occur on every page, and then call a page-specific init function to initialize node-specific functionality, retrieving the init method from a JS object. On each page load, something like this will happen: $(document).ready(function(){ $('header').menuAction(); App.pages.executePage('home','show'); //dynamic from framework request object }); And the main App javascript is like App = { usefulGlobalVar: 0, pages: { executePage: function(action, controller) { // if exists, App.pages[action][controller].init() }, home: { show: { init: function() { $('#tabs').tabs(); //et. al }, normalizeName: function() { // dom-specific utility function that // doesn't require a full-blown component/class/module } }, edit: ... }, user_profile: ... } } Any common features and functionality requiring modularization or compotentizing is done as needed with prototyping. For common implementation of plugins, I often extend JQuery, so I can easily initialize a plugin with the same options throughout the site. For example, $('[data-tabs]').myTabs() with this code in a utility javascript file: (function($) { $.fn.myTabs = function() { this.tabs( { //...common options }); }; }) Pointers to articles, books or other discussions would be most welcome. Again, I am looking for a site-wide implementation pattern, NOT a JS MVC framework or general how-tos on creating JS classes or components. Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Design Patterns - Why the need for interfaces?

    - by Kyle Johnson
    OK. I am learning design patterns. Every time I see someone code an example of a design pattern they use interfaces. Here is an example: http://visualstudiomagazine.com/Articles/2013/06/18/the-facade-pattern-in-net.aspx?Page=1 Can someone explain to me why was the interfaces needed in this example to demonstrate the facade pattern? The program work if you pass in the classes to the facade instead of the interface. If I don't have interfaces does that mean

    Read the article

  • reference list for non-IT driven algorithmic patterns

    - by Quicker
    I am looking for a reference list for non-IT driven algorithmic patterns (which still can be helped with IT implementations of IT). An Example List would be: name; short desc; reference Travelling Salesman; find the shortest possible route on a multiple target path; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem Ressource Disposition (aka Regulation); Distribute a limited/exceeding input on a given number output receivers based on distribution rules; http://database-programmer.blogspot.de/2010/12/critical-analysis-of-algorithm-sproc.html If there is no such list, but you instantly think of something specific, please 'put it on the desk'. Maybe I can compile something out of the input I get here (actually I am very frustrated as I did not find any such list via research by myself). Details on Scoping: I found it very hard to formulate what I want in a way everything is out that I do not need (which may be the issue why I did not find anything at google). There is a database centric definition for what I am looking for in the section 'Processes' of the second example link. That somehow fits, but the database focus sort of drifts away from the pattern thinking, which I have in mind. So here are my own thoughts around what's in and what's out: I am NOT looking for a foundational algo ref list, which is implemented as basis for any programming language. Eg. the php reference describes substr and strlen. That implements algos, but is not what I am looking for. the problem the algo does address would even exist, if there were no computers (or other IT components) the main focus of the algo is NOT to help other algo's chances are high, that there are implementions of the solution or any workaround without any IT support out there in the world however the algo could be benefitialy implemented/fully supported by a software application = means: the problem of the algo has to be addressed anyway, but running an algo implementation with software automates the process (that is why I posted it on stackoverflow and not somewhere else) typically such algo implementations have more than one input field value and more than one output field value - which implies it could not be implemented as simple function (which is fixed to produce not more than one output value) in a normalized data model often times such algo implementation outputs span accross multiple rows (sometimes multiple tables), whereby the number of output rows depends on the input paraters and rows in the table(s) at start time - which implies that any algo implementation/procedure must interact with a database (read and/or write) I am mainly looking for patterns, not for specific implementations. Example: The Travelling Salesman assumes any coordinates, however it does not say: You need a table targets with fields x and y. - however sometimes descriptions are focussed on examples with specific implementations very much - no worries, as long as the pattern gets clear

    Read the article

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    Read the article

  • Construction Paper, Legos, and Architectural Modeling

    I can remember as a kid playing with construction paper and Legos to explore my imagination. Through my exploration I was able to build airplanes, footballs, guns, and more, out of paper. Additionally I could create entire cities, robots, or anything else I could image out of Legos.  These toys, I now realize were in fact tools that gave me an opportunity to explore my ideas in the physical world through the use of modeling.  My imagination was allowed to run wild as I, unknowingly at the time, made design decisions that directly affected the models I was building from the raw materials.  To prove my point further, I can remember building a paper airplane that seemed to go nowhere when I tried to throw it. So I decided to attach a paper clip to the plane before I decided to throw it the next time to test my concept that by adding more weight to the plane that it would fly better and for longer distances. The paper airplane allowed me to model my design decision through the use of creating an artifact in that I created a paper airplane that was carrying extra weight through the incorporation of the paper clip in to the design. Also, I remember using Legos to build all sorts of creations, and these creations became artifacts of my imagination. As I further and further defined my Lego creations through the process of playing I was able to create elaborate artifacts of my imagination. These artifacts represented design decision I had made in the evolution of my creation through my child like design process. In some form or fashion the artifacts I created as a kid are very similar to the artifacts that I create when I model a software architectural concept or a software design in that the process of making decisions is directly translated in to a tangible model in the form of an architectural model. Architectural models have been defined as artifacts that depict design decisions of a system’s architecture.  The act of creating architectural models is the act of architectural modeling. Furthermore, architectural modeling is the process of creating a physical model based architectural concepts and documenting these design decisions. In the process of creating models, the standard notation used is Architectural modeling notation. This notation is the primary method of capturing the essence of design decisions regarding architecture.  Modeling notations can vary based on the need and intent of a project; typically they range from natural language to a diagram based notation. Currently, Unified Markup Language (UML) is the industry standard in terms of architectural modeling notation  because allows for architectures to be defined through a series of boxes, lines, arrows and other basic symbols that encapsulate design designs in to virtual components, connectors, configurations and interfaces.  Furthermore UML allows for additional break down of models through the use of natural language as to explain each section of the model in plain English. One of the major factors in architectural modeling is to define what is to be modeled. As a basic rule of thumb, I tend to model architecture based on the complexity of systems or sub sub-systems of architecture. Another key factor is the level of detail that is actually needed for a model. For example if I am modeling a system for a CEO to view then the low level details will be omitted. In comparison, if I was modeling a system for another engineer to actually implement I would include as much detailed information as I could to help the engineer implement my design.

    Read the article

  • Delving into design patterns, and what that means for the Oracle user experience

    - by Kathy.Miedema
    By Kathy Miedema, Oracle Applications User Experience George Hackman, Senior Director, Applications User Experiences The Oracle Applications User Experience team has some exciting things happening around Fusion Applications design patterns. Because we’re hoping to have some new offerings soon (stay tuned with VoX to see what’s in the pipeline around Fusion Applications design patterns), now is a good time to talk more about what design patterns can do for the individual user as well as the entire company. George Hackman, Senior Director of Operations User Experience, says the first thing to note is that user experience is not just about the user interface. It’s about understanding how people do things, observing them, and then finding the patterns that emerge. The Applications UX team develops those patterns and then builds them into Oracle applications. What emerges, Hackman says, is a consistent, efficient user experience that promotes a productive workplace. Creating design patterns What is a design pattern in the context of enterprise software? “Every day, people use technology to get things done,” Hackman says. “They navigate a virtual world that reaches from enterprise to consumer apps, and from desktop to mobile. This virtual world is constantly under construction. New areas are being developed and old areas are being redone. As this world is being built and remodeled, efficient pathways and practices emerge. “Oracle's user experience team watches users navigate this world. We measure their productivity and ask them about their satisfaction. We take the most efficient, most productive pathways from the enterprise and consumer world and turn them into Oracle's user experience patterns.” Hackman describes the process as combining all of the best practices from every part of a user’s world. Members of the user experience team observe, analyze, design, prototype, and measure each work task to find the best possible pattern for a particular work flow. As the team builds the patterns, “we make sure they are fully buildable using Oracle technology,” Hackman said. “So customers know they can use these patterns. There’s no need to make something up from scratch, not knowing whether you can even build it.” Hackman says that creating something on a computer is a good example of a user experience pattern. “People are creating things all the time,” he says. “On the consumer side, they are creating documents. On the enterprise side, they are creating expense reports. On a mobile phone, they are creating contacts. They are using different apps like iPhone or Facebook or Gmail or Oracle software, all doing this creation process.” The Applications UX team starts their process by observing how people might create something. “We observe people creating things. We see the patterns, we analyze and document, then we apply them to our products. It might be different from phone to web browser, but we have these design patterns that create a consistent experience across platforms, and across products, too. The result for customers Oracle constantly improves its part of the virtual world, Hackman said. New products are created and existing products are upgraded. Because Oracle builds user experience design patterns, Oracle's virtual world becomes both more powerful and more familiar at the same time. Because of design patterns, users can navigate with ease as they embrace the latest technology – because it behaves the way they expect it to. This means less training and faster adoption for individual users, and more productivity for the business as a whole. Hackman said Oracle gives customers and partners access to design patterns so that they can build in the virtual world using the same best practices. Customers and partners can extend applications with a user experience that is comfortable and familiar to their users. For businesses that are integrating different Oracle applications, design patterns are key. The user experience created in E-Business Suite should be similar to the user experience in Fusion Applications, Hackman said. If a user is transitioning from one application to the other, it shouldn’t be difficult for them to do their work. With design patterns, it isn’t. “Oracle user experience patterns are the building blocks for the virtual world that ensure productivity, consistency and user satisfaction,” Hackman said. “They are built for the enterprise, but incorporate the best practices from across the virtual world. They empower productivity and facilitate social interaction. When you build with patterns, you get all the end-user benefits of less training / retraining from the finished product. You also get faster / cheaper development.” What’s coming? You can already access design patterns to help you build Dashboards with OBIEE here. And we promised you at the beginning that we had something in the pipeline on Fusion Applications design patterns. Look for the announcement about when they are available here on VoX.

    Read the article

  • What naming anti-patterns exist?

    - by Billy ONeal
    There are some names, where if you find yourself reaching for those names, you know you've already messed something up. For example: XxxManager This is bad because a class should describe what the class does. If the most specific word you can come up with for what the class does is "manage," then the class is too big. What other naming anti-patterns exist? EDIT: To clarify, I'm not asking "what names are bad" -- that question is entirely subjective and there's no way to answer it. I'm asking, "what names indicate overall design problems with the system." That is, if you find yourself wanting to call a component Xyz, that probably indicates the component is ill concieved. Also note here that there are exceptions to every rule -- I'm just looking for warning flags for when I really need to stop and rethink a design.

    Read the article

  • Code and Slides: Techniques, Strategies, and Patterns for Structuring JavaScript Code

    - by dwahlin
    This presentation was given at the spring 2012 DevConnections conference in Las Vegas and is based on my Structuring JavaScript Code course from Pluralsight. The goal of the presentation is to show how closures combined with code patterns can be used to provide structure to JavaScript code and make it more re-useable, maintainable, and less susceptible to naming conflicts.  Topics covered include: Closures Using Object literals Namespaces The Prototype Pattern The Revealing Module Pattern The Revealing Prototype Pattern View more of my presentations here. Sample code from the presentation can be found here. Check out the full-length course on the topic at Pluralsight.com.

    Read the article

  • C# Open Source software that is useful for learning Design Patterns

    - by Fathom Savvy
    In college I took a class in Expert Systems. The language the book taught (CLIPS) was esoteric - Expert Systems: Principles and Programming, Fourth Edition. I remember having a tough time with it. So, after almost failing the class, I needed to create the most awesome Expert System for my final presentation. I chose to create an expert system that would calculate risk analysis for a person's retirement portfolio. In short, the system would provide the services normally performed by one's financial adviser. In other words, based on personality, age, state of the macro economy, and other factors, should one's portfolio be conservative, moderate, or aggressive? In the appendix of the book (or on the CD-ROM), there was this in-depth example program for something unrelated to my presentation. Over my break, I read and re-read every line of that program until I understood it to the letter. Even though it was unrelated, I learned more than I ever could by reading all of the chapters. My presentation turned out to be pretty damn good and I received praises from my professor and classmates. So, the moral of the story is..., by understanding other people's code, you can gain greater insight into a language/paradigm than by reading canonical examples. Still, to this day, I am having trouble with everyday design patterns such as the Factory Pattern. I would like to know if anyone could recommend open source software that would help me understand the Gang of Four design patterns, at the very least. I have read the books, but I'm having trouble writing code for the concepts in the real world. Perhaps, by studying code used in today's real world applications, it might just "click". I realize a piece of software may only implement one kind of design pattern. But, if the pattern is an implementation you think is good for learning, and you know what pattern to look for within the source, I'm hoping you can tell me about it. For example, the System.Linq.Expressions namespace has a good example of the Visitor Pattern. The client calls Expression.Accept(new ExpressionVisitor()), which calls ExpressionVisitor (VisitExtension), which calls back to Expression (VisitChildren), which then calls Expression (Accept) again - wooah, kinda convoluted. The point to note here is that VisitChildren is a virtual method. Both Expression and those classes derived from Expression can implement the VisitChildren method any way they want. This means that one type of Expression can run code that is completely different from another type of derived Expression, even though the ExpressionVisitor class is the same in the Accept method. (As a side note Expression.Accept is also virtual). In the end, the code provides a real world example that you won't get in any book because it's kinda confusing. To summarize, If you know of any open source software that uses a design pattern implementation you were impressed by, please list it here. I'm sure it will help many others besides just me. public class VisitorPatternTest { public void Main() { Expression normalExpr = new Expression(); normalExpr.Accept(new ExpressionVisitor()); Expression binExpr = new BinaryExpression(); binExpr.Accept(new ExpressionVisitor()); } } public class Expression { protected internal virtual Expression Accept(ExpressionVisitor visitor) { return visitor.VisitExtension(this); } protected internal virtual Expression VisitChildren(ExpressionVisitor visitor) { if (!this.CanReduce) { throw Error.MustBeReducible(); } return visitor.Visit(this.ReduceAndCheck()); } public virtual Expression Visit(Expression node) { if (node != null) { return node.Accept(this); } return null; } public Expression ReduceAndCheck() { if (!this.CanReduce) { throw Error.MustBeReducible(); } Expression expression = this.Reduce(); if ((expression == null) || (expression == this)) { throw Error.MustReduceToDifferent(); } if (!TypeUtils.AreReferenceAssignable(this.Type, expression.Type)) { throw Error.ReducedNotCompatible(); } return expression; } } public class BinaryExpression : Expression { protected internal override Expression Accept(ExpressionVisitor visitor) { return visitor.VisitBinary(this); } protected internal override Expression VisitChildren(ExpressionVisitor visitor) { return CreateDummyExpression(); } protected internal Expression CreateDummyExpression() { Expression dummy = new Expression(); return dummy; } } public class ExpressionVisitor { public virtual Expression Visit(Expression node) { if (node != null) { return node.Accept(this); } return null; } protected internal virtual Expression VisitExtension(Expression node) { return node.VisitChildren(this); } protected internal virtual Expression VisitBinary(BinaryExpression node) { return ValidateBinary(node, node.Update(this.Visit(node.Left), this.VisitAndConvert<LambdaExpression>(node.Conversion, "VisitBinary"), this.Visit(node.Right))); } }

    Read the article

  • Useful design patterns for working with FragmentManager on Android

    - by antman8969
    When working with fragments, I have been using a class composed of static methods that define actions on fragments. For any given project, I might have a class called FragmentActions, which contains methods similar to the following: public static void showDeviceFragment(FragmentManager man){ String tag = AllDevicesFragment.getFragmentTag(); AllDevicesFragment fragment = (AllDevicesFragment)man.findFragmentByTag(tag); if(fragment == null){ fragment = new AllDevicesFragment(); } FragmentTransaction t = man.beginTransaction(); t.add(R.id.main_frame, fragment, tag); t.commit(); } I'll usually have one method per application screen. I do something like this when I work with small local databases (usually SQLite) so I applied it to fragments, which seem to have a similar workflow; I'm not married to it though. How have you organized your applications to interface with the Fragments API, and what (if any) design patterns do you think apply do this?

    Read the article

  • Design Patterns - Service Layer

    - by garfbradaz
    I currently reading a lot about Design Patterns and I have been watching various Pluralsight videos from their library. Now so far I have learnt the following: Repository Pattern Unit of Work Pattern Abstract Factory Pattern Reading the awesome "DI in .NET" book Now I read lot about Services and Service Layers and wanted some advice about the best place to read up and learn about these. I presume this fits into Domain Driven Design and I should start there? The term "Service" just seem to be used widely within IT and it can be confusing the exact meaning. So my questions is: What is the Service Layer Where is the best place to learn about them. I know there are probably tonnes of interweb/books/blogs on the subject, but some good areas to start from would be nice. If I'm being too vague, let me know.

    Read the article

  • Useful design patterns for working with FragmentManger on Android

    - by antman8969
    When working with fragments, I have been using a class composed of static methods that define actions on fragments. For any given project, I might have a class called FragmentActions, which contains methods similar to the following: public static void showDeviceFragment(FragmentManager man){ String tag = AllDevicesFragment.getFragmentTag(); AllDevicesFragment fragment = (AllDevicesFragment)man.findFragmentByTag(tag); if(fragment == null){ fragment = new AllDevicesFragment(); } FragmentTransaction t = man.beginTransaction(); t.add(R.id.main_frame, fragment, tag); t.commit(); } I'll usually have one method per application screen. I do something like this when I work with small local databases (usually SQLite) so I applied it to fragments, which seem to have a similar workflow; I'm not married to it though. How have you organized your applications to interface with the Fragments API, and what (if any) design patterns do you think apply do this?

    Read the article

  • Using design-patterns to transform web-service model classes into local model classes and vise versa

    - by Daniil Petrov
    There is a web-application built with play framework 1.2.7. It contains less than 10 model classes. The main purpose of the application is a lightweight access to a complex remote application (more than 50 model classes). The remote application has its own SOAP API and we use it for synchronization of data. There is a scheduled job in the web-app which makes requests to the remote app. It gets bunches of objects from the remote model and populates corresponding objects of the local model. Currently, there are two groups of classes - the local model and the remote model (generated from wsdl schema). It is not allowed to make any modifications to the remote model. Transformations are being made in the scheduled job class. When it gets objects from the remote app it creates local objects. Recently, it was decided to add a possibility to modify the remote objects. It requires more transformations on our side. We need to transform from remote to local model when reading objects and from local to remote when changing objects. I wonder if this would be possible to use some design-patterns to reduce a number of transformations?

    Read the article

  • Which of these design patterns is superior?

    - by durron597
    I find I tend to design class structures where several subclasses have nearly identical functionality, but one piece of it is different. So I write nearly all the code in the abstract class, and then create several subclasses to do the one different thing. Does this pattern have a name? Is this the best way for this sort of scenario? Option 1: public interface TaxCalc { String calcTaxes(); } public abstract class AbstractTaxCalc implements TaxCalc { // most constructors and fields are here public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double diffNumber = getNumber(data); // more code } abstract protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data); protected double initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public class SimpleTaxCalc extends AbstractCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { double temp = intialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // do other stuff return temp; } } public class FancyTaxCalc extends AbstractTaxCalc { protected double getNumber(UserFinancials data) { int temp = initialCalc(data.getGrossIncome()); // Do fancier math return temp; } } Option 2: This version is more like the Strategy pattern, and should be able to do essentially the same sorts of tasks. public class TaxCalcImpl implements TaxCalc { private final TaxMath worker; public DummyImpl(TaxMath worker) { this.worker = worker; } public double calcTaxes(UserFinancials data) { // code double analyzedDouble = initialNumber; int diffNumber = worker.getNumber(data, initialNumber); // more code } protected int initialTaxes(double grossIncome) { // code return initialNumber; } } public interface TaxMath { double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial); } Then I could do: TaxCalc dum = new TaxCalcImpl(new TaxMath() { @Override public double getNumber(UserFinancials data, double initial) { double temp = data.getGrossIncome(); // do math return temp; }); And I could make specific implementations of TaxMath for things I use a lot, or I could make a stateless singleton for certain kinds of workers I use a lot. So the question I'm asking is: Which of these patterns is superior, when, and why? Or, alternately, is there an even better third option?

    Read the article

  • How to use the unit of work and repository patterns in a service oriented enviroment

    - by A. Karimi
    I've created an application framework using the unit of work and repository patterns for it's data layer. Data consumer layers such as presentation depend on the data layer design. For example a CRUD abstract form has a dependency to a repository (IRepository). This architecture works like a charm in client/server environments (Ex. a WPF application and a SQL Server). But I'm looking for a good pattern to change or reuse this architecture for a service oriented environment. Of course I have some ideas: Idea 1: The "Adapter" design pattern Keep the current architecture and create a new unit of work and repository implementation which can work with a service instead of the ORM. Data layer consumers are loosely coupled to the data layer so it's possible but the problem is about the unit of work; I have to create a context which tracks the objects state at the client side and sends the changes to the server side on calling the "Commit" (Something that I think the RIA has done for Silverlight). Here the diagram: ----------- CLIENT----------- | ------------------ SERVER ---------------------- [ UI ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Idea 2: Add another layer Add another layer (let say "local services" or "data provider"), then put it between the data layer (unit of work and repository) and the data consumer layers (like UI). Then I have to rewrite the consumer classes (CRUD and other classes which are dependent to IRepository) to depend on another interface. And the diagram: ----------------- CLIENT ------------------ | ------------------- SERVER --------------------- [ UI ] -> [ Local Services/Data Provider ] ---> [ Web Services ] -> [ UoW/Repository ] -> [DB] Please note that I have the local services layer on the current architecture but it doesn't expose the data layer functionality. In another word the UI layer can communicate with both of the data and local services layers whereas the local services layer also uses the data layer. | | | | | | | | ---> | Local Services | ---> | | | UI | | | | Data | | | | | | | ----------------------------> | |

    Read the article

  • Algorithms or patterns for a linked question and answer cost calculator

    - by kmc
    I've been asked to build an online calculator in PHP (and the Laravel framework). It will take the answers to a series of questions to estimate the cost of a home extension. For example, a couple of questions may be: What is the lie of your property? Flat, slightly inclined, heavily inclined. (these suggestive values could have specific values in the underlying calculator like, 0 degrees, 5 degrees, 10 degrees. What is your current flooring system? Wooden, or concrete? These would then impact the results of other questions. Once the size of the extension has been input, the lie of the land will affect how much site works will cost, and how much rubbish collection will cost. The second question will impact the cost of the extensions flooring, as stumping and laying floorboards is a different cost to laying foundations and a concrete slab. It will also influence what heating and cooling systems are available in the calculator. So it's VERY interlinked. The answer to any question can influence the options of other questions, and the end result. I'm having trouble figuring out an approach to this that will allow new options and questions to be plugged in at a later stage without having things too coupled. The Observer pattern, or Laravel's events may be handy, but currently the sheer breadth of the calculator has me struggling to gather my thoughts and see a sensible implementation. Are there any patterns or OO approaches that may help? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Patterns for Handling Changing Property Sets in C++

    - by Bhargav Bhat
    I have a bunch "Property Sets" (which are simple structs containing POD members). I'd like to modify these property sets (eg: add a new member) at run time so that the definition of the property sets can be externalized and the code itself can be re-used with multiple versions/types of property sets with minimal/no changes. For example, a property set could look like this: struct PropSetA { bool activeFlag; int processingCount; /* snip few other such fields*/ }; But instead of setting its definition in stone at compile time, I'd like to create it dynamically at run time. Something like: class PropSet propSetA; propSetA("activeFlag",true); //overloading the function call operator propSetA("processingCount",0); And the code dependent on the property sets (possibly in some other library) will use the data like so: bool actvFlag = propSet["activeFlag"]; if(actvFlag == true) { //Do Stuff } The current implementation behind all of this is as follows: class PropValue { public: // Variant like class for holding multiple data-types // overloaded Conversion operator. Eg: operator bool() { return (baseType == BOOLEAN) ? this->ToBoolean() : false; } // And a method to create PropValues various base datatypes static FromBool(bool baseValue); }; class PropSet { public: // overloaded[] operator for adding properties void operator()(std::string propName, bool propVal) { propMap.insert(std::make_pair(propName, PropVal::FromBool(propVal))); } protected: // the property map std::map<std::string, PropValue> propMap; }; This problem at hand is similar to this question on SO and the current approach (described above) is based on this answer. But as noted over at SO this is more of a hack than a proper solution. The fundamental issues that I have with this approach are as follows: Extending this for supporting new types will require significant code change. At the bare minimum overloaded operators need to be extended to support the new type. Supporting complex properties (eg: struct containing struct) is tricky. Supporting a reference mechanism (needed for an optimization of not duplicating identical property sets) is tricky. This also applies to supporting pointers and multi-dimensional arrays in general. Are there any known patterns for dealing with this scenario? Essentially, I'm looking for the equivalent of the visitor pattern, but for extending class properties rather than methods. Edit: Modified problem statement for clarity and added some more code from current implementation.

    Read the article

  • When should I use—and not use—design patterns?

    - by ashmish2
    In a previous question of mine on Stack Overflow, FredOverflow mentioned in the comments: Note that patterns do not magically improve the quality of your code. and Any measure of quality you can imagine. Patterns are not a panacea. I once wrote a Tetris game with about 100 classes that incorporated all the patterns I knew at the time. Why use a simple if/else if you can use a pattern? OO is good, and patterns are even better, right? No, it was a terrible, over-engineered piece of crap. I am quite confused by these comments: I know design patterns help to make code reusable and readable, but when should I use use design patterns and perhaps more importantly, when should I avoid getting carried away with them?

    Read the article

  • How to evade writing a lot of repetitive code when mapping?

    - by JPCF
    I have a data access layer (DAL) using Entity Framework, and I want to use Automapper to communicate with upper layers. I will have to map data transfer objects (DTOs) to entities as the first operation on every method, process my inputs, then proceed to map from entities to DTOs. What would you do to skip writing this code? As an example, see this: //This is a common method in my DAL public CarDTO getCarByOwnerAndCreditStatus(OwnerDTO ownerDto, CreditDto creditDto) { //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<OwnerDTO,Owner>(); Mapper.CreateMap<CreditDTO,Credit>(); Owner owner = Mapper.map(ownerDto); Owner credit = Mapper.map(creditDto) //... Some code processing the mapped DTOs //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<Car,CarDTO>(); Car car = Mapper.map(ownedCar); return car; }

    Read the article

  • Difference between Factory Method and Abstract Factory design patterns using C#.Net

    - by nijhawan.saurabh
    First of all I'll just put both these patterns in context and describe their intent as in the GOF book: Factory Method: Define an interface for creating an object, but let subclasses decide which class to instantiate. Factory Method lets a class defer instantiation to subclasses.   Abstract Factory: Provide an interface for creating families of related or dependent objects without specifying their concrete classes.   Points to note:   Abstract factory pattern adds a layer of abstraction to the factory method pattern. The type of factory is not known to the client at compile time, this information is passed to the client at runtime (How it is passed is again dependent on the system, you may store this information in configuration files and the client can read it on execution). While implementing Abstract factory pattern, the factory classes can have multiple factory methods. In Abstract factory, a factory is capable of creating more than one type of product (Simpilar products are grouped together in a factory)   Sample implementation of factory method pattern   Let's see the class diagram first:                   ProductFactory.cs // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="ProductFactory.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public abstract class ProductFactory     {         /// <summary>         /// </summary>         /// <returns>         /// </returns>         public abstract Product CreateProductInstance();     } }     ProductAFactory.cs // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="ProductAFactory.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public class ProductAFactory:ProductFactory     {         public override Product CreateProductInstance()         {             return new ProductA();         }     } }         // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="ProductBFactory.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public class ProductBFactory:ProductFactory     {         public override Product CreateProductInstance()         {             return new ProductB();           }     } }     // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="Product.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public abstract class Product     {         public abstract string Name { get; set; }     } }     // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="ProductA.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public class ProductA:Product     {         public ProductA()         {               Name = "ProductA";         }           public override string Name { get; set; }     } }       // ----------------------------------------------------------------------- // <copyright file="ProductB.cs" company=""> // TODO: Update copyright text. // </copyright> // -----------------------------------------------------------------------   namespace FactoryMethod {     using System;     using System.Collections.Generic;     using System.Linq;     using System.Text;       /// <summary>     /// TODO: Update summary.     /// </summary>     public class ProductB:Product     {          public ProductB()         {               Name = "ProductA";         }         public override string Name { get; set; }     } }     Program.cs using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text;   namespace FactoryMethod {     class Program     {         static void Main(string[] args)         {             ProductFactory pf = new ProductAFactory();               Product product = pf.CreateProductInstance();             Console.WriteLine(product.Name);         }     } }       Normal 0 false false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

    Read the article

  • Fowler Analysis Patterns lately?

    - by Berryl
    As much as I've always loved this one is how much I always wished there were more meaty examples of how to apply some of the concepts available. Is anyone aware of anything out there worth looking at that attempts to that? Cheers, Berryl

    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

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

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >