Search Results

Search found 15860 results on 635 pages for 'document oriented databas'.

Page 23/635 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • Is it a good practice to wrap all primitives and Strings?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    According to Jeff Bay's Essay on Object Callisthenics, One of the practices is set to be "Wrap all primitives and Strings" Can anyone elaborate on this ? In languages where we already have wrappers for primitives like C# and Java. and In languages where Collections can have generics where you are sure of what type goes into the collection, do we need to wrap string's inside their own classes ? Does it have any other advantage ?

    Read the article

  • DDD: Service or Repository

    - by tikhop
    I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

    Read the article

  • Advice on designing a robust program to handle a large library of meta-information & programs

    - by Sam Bryant
    So this might be overly vague, but here it is anyway I'm not really looking for a specific answer, but rather general design principles or direction towards resources that deal with problems like this. It's one of my first large-scale applications, and I would like to do it right. Brief Explanation My basic problem is that I have to write an application that handles a large library of meta-data, can easily modify the meta-data on-the-fly, is robust with respect to crashing, and is very efficient. (Sorta like the design parameters of iTunes, although sometimes iTunes performs more poorly than I would like). If you don't want to read the details, you can skip the rest Long Explanation Specifically I am writing a program that creates a library of image files and meta-data about these files. There is a list of tags that may or may not apply to each image. The program needs to be able to add new images, new tags, assign tags to images, and detect duplicate images, all while operating. The program contains an image Viewer which has tagging operations. The idea is that if a given image A is viewed while the library has tags T1, T2, and T3, then that image will have boolean flags for each of those tags (depending on whether the user tagged that image while it was open in the Viewer). However, prior to being viewed in the Viewer, image A would have no value for tags T1, T2, and T3. Instead it would have a "dirty" flag indicating that it is unknown whether or not A has these tags or not. The program can introduce new tags at any time (which would automatically set all images to "dirty" with respect to this new tag) This program must be fast. It must be easily able to pull up a list of images with or without a certain tag as well as images which are "dirty" with respect to a tag. It has to be crash-safe, in that if it suddenly crashes, all of the tagging information done in that session is not lost (though perhaps it's okay to loose some of it) Finally, it has to work with a lot of images (10,000) I am a fairly experienced programmer, but I have never tried to write a program with such demanding needs and I have never worked with databases. With respect to the meta-data storage, there seem to be a few design choices: Choice 1: Invidual meta-data vs centralized meta-data Individual Meta-Data: have a separate meta-data file for each image. This way, as soon as you change the meta-data for an image, it can be written to the hard disk, without having to rewrite the information for all of the other images. Centralized Meta-Data: Have a single file to hold the meta-data for every file. This would probably require meta-data writes in intervals as opposed to after every change. The benefit here is that you could keep a centralized list of all images with a given tag, ect, making the task of pulling up all images with a given tag very efficient

    Read the article

  • Which topics should be covered in a basic undergraduate C++ course?

    - by Gulshan
    I have a young lecturer friend who is going to teach the undergraduate C++ course in CS. He asked me for some suggestions regarding how the course should be organized. Now I am asking you. I have seen many trends in universities which leads to a nasty experience of C++. So, please suggest from a professional programmer's point of view. For your information, the students going to take the course, have taken course like "Introduction to programming with C" in previous semester.

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use "plain old data" classes?

    - by Michael
    In legacy code I occasionally see classes that are nothing but wrappers for data. something like: class Bottle { int height; int diameter; Cap capType; getters/setters, maybe a constructor } My understanding of OO is that classes are structures for data and the methods of operating on that data. This seems to preclude objects of this type. To me they are nothing more than structs and kind of defeat the purpose of OO. I don't think it's necessarily evil, though it may be a code smell. Is there a case where such objects would be necessary? If this is used often, does it make the design suspect?

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • How do game programmers design their classes to reuse in AI, network and play and pass mode?

    - by Amogh Talpallikar
    For a two player game where, your opponent could be on the network, CPU itself or near you where you would play turn by turn on the same machine. How do people design classes for re-use ? I am in a similar situation and have no experience in making such complex games. But here is what I have thought, If I am a player object , I should only be interacting with the GameManager or GameEngine Singleton , from which I will get various notifications about the game status. I dont care where and who my opponent is, this GameManager depending upon the game mode, will interact with gameNetworkManager , or AI tell me what the opponent played. I am not sure about the scenario where we play and pass [turn by turn on same machine]. Hoping for a brief but clear explanation or at least a link to a similar resource.:)

    Read the article

  • LSP vs OCP / Liskov Substitution VS Open Close

    - by Kolyunya
    I am trying to understand the SOLID principles of OOP and I've come to the conclusion that LSP and OCP have some similarities (if not to say more). the open/closed principle states "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". LSP in simple words states that any instance of Foo can be replaced with any instance of Bar which is derived from Foo and the program will work the same very way. I'm not a pro OOP programmer, but it seems to me that LSP is only possible if Bar, derived from Foo does not change anything in it but only extends it. That means that in particular program LSP is true only when OCP is true and OCP is true only if LSP is true. That means that they are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I really want to understand these ideas. Great thanks for an answer.

    Read the article

  • Design patterns and multiple programming languages

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    I am referring here to the design patterns found in the GOF book. First, how I see it, there are a few peculiarities to design pattern and knowing multiple languages, for example in Java you really need a singleton but in Python you can do without it you write a module, I saw somewhere a wiki trying to write all GOF patterns for JavaScript and all the entries were empty, I guess because it might be a daunting task to do that adaptation. If there is someone who is using design patterns and is programming multiple languages supporting the OOP paradigm and can give me a hint on how should I approach design patterns. An approach that might help me in all languages I use(Java, JavaScript, Python, Ruby): Can I write good application without knowing exactly the GOF design patterns or I might need just some of them which might be crucial and if yes which one, are there alternatives to GOF for specific languages, and should a programmer or a team make their own design patterns set?

    Read the article

  • Looking for some OO design advice

    - by Andrew Stephens
    I'm developing an app that will be used to open and close valves in an industrial environment, and was thinking of something simple like this:- public static void ValveController { public static void OpenValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to open the valve } public static void CloseValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to close the valve } } (The implementation would write a few bytes of data to the serial port to control the valve - an "address" derived from the valve name, and either a "1" or "0" to open or close the valve). Another dev asked whether we should instead create a separate class for each physical valve, of which there are dozens. I agree it would be nicer to write code like PlasmaValve.Open() rather than ValveController.OpenValve("plasma"), but is this overkill? Also, I was wondering how best to tackle the design with a couple of hypothetical future requirements in mind:- We are asked to support a new type of valve requiring different values to open and close it (not 0 and 1). We are asked to support a valve that can be set to any position from 0-100, rather than simply "open" or "closed". Normally I would use inheritance for this kind of thing, but I've recently started to get my head around "composition over inheritance" and wonder if there is a slicker solution to be had using composition?

    Read the article

  • Leveraging AutoVue in Oracle's Universal Content Management for Improved Document

    AutoVue visualization, leveraged within Oracle’s Universal Content Management, makes access to technical information widely available to UCM users, allowing them to review and collaborate on CAD and engineering content in a variety of business processes and workflows. Comments and feedback are captured within the design context and recorded and tracked digitally within UCM, providing a reliable trail of decisions and approvals thereby facilitating an organization’s audit compliance. The joint solution can also be leveraged in broader Oracle applications, such as Web Center, eAM to name a few. Hear about the benefits UCM users can achieve by introducing AutoVue visualization into their UCM environment.

    Read the article

  • Describe business logic with diagrams

    - by Nikos M.
    I am currently developing a web application for my thesis.I was asked by my professor to make diagrams to describe the business logic. Since I don't have a prior experience, I am pretty confused with all the terminology. I managed to clarify,I think, what business rules and business logic are, but I can't find out how you describe the business logic. Is it something particular or is it something more general? Do I need to learn UML? Does the fact that I use MVC affects the way I'll describe it?

    Read the article

  • What simple game is good to learn OO principles?

    - by Bogdan Gavril
    I have to come up with a project propsal for my students, here are some details: The design should be gove over OO concepts: encapsulation, interfaces, inheritance, abstract classes Idealy a game, to keep interest high No GUI, just the console Effective time to finish this: ~ 6 days (1 person per proj) I have found one nice example of a game with carnivore and herbivore cells in a drop of water (array), it's a game of life twist. It is a bit too simple. Any ideeas? Aditional info: - language is C#

    Read the article

  • Should main method be only consists of object creations and method calls?

    - by crucified soul
    A friend of mine told me that, the best practice is class containing main method should be named Main and only contains main method. Also main method should only parse inputs, create other objects and call other methods. The Main class and main method shouldn't do anything else. Basically what he is saying that class containing main method should be like: public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { //parse inputs //create other objects //call methods } } Is it the best practice?

    Read the article

  • What should be allowed inside getters and setters?

    - by Botond Balázs
    I got into an interesting internet argument about getter and setter methods and encapsulation. Someone said that all they should do is an assignment (setters) or a variable access (getters) to keep them "pure" and ensure encapsulation. Am I right that this would completely defeat the purpose of having getters and setters in the first place and validation and other logic (without strange side-effects of course) should be allowed? When should validation happen? When setting the value, inside the setter (to protect the object from ever entering an invalid state - my opinion) Before setting the value, outside the setter Inside the object, before each time the value is used Is a setter allowed to change the value (maybe convert a valid value to some canonical internal representation)?

    Read the article

  • How to refactor an OO program into a functional one?

    - by Asik
    I'm having difficulty finding resources on how to write programs in a functional style. The most advanced topic I could find discussed online was using structural typing to cut down on class hierarchies; most just deal with how to use map/fold/reduce/etc to replace imperative loops. What I would really like to find is an in-depth discussion of an OOP implementation of a non-trivial program, its limitations, and how to refactor it in a functional style. Not just an algorithm or a data structure, but something with several different roles and aspects - a video game perhaps. By the way I did read Real-World Functional Programming by Tomas Petricek, but I'm left wanting more.

    Read the article

  • Which open source PHP project has the 'perfect' OOP design I can learn from?

    - by aditya menon
    I am a newbie to OOP, and I learn best by example. You could say this question is similar to Which Scala open source projects should I study to learn best coding practices - but in PHP. I have heard-tell that Symfony has the best 'architecture' (I will not pretend I know what that exactly means), as well as Doctrine ORM. Is it worth it to spend many months reading the source code of these projects, trying to deduce the patterns used and learning new tricks? I have seen equal number of web pages dissing and liking Zend's codebase (will provide links if deemed necessary). Do you know of any other project that would make any veteran OOP developer shed tears of joy? Please let me add that practicality and scope of use is not a concern at all here - I just want to do: Pick a project that has a codebase deemed awesome by devs way better and greater than me. Write code that achieves what the project does. Compare results and try to learn what I don't know. Basically, an academic interest codebase. Any recommendations please?

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to use "container" classes?

    - by Michael
    I realize the term "container" is misleading in this context - if anyone can think of a better term please edit it in. In legacy code I occasionally see classes that are nothing but wrappers for data. something like: class Bottle { int height; int diameter; Cap capType; getters/setters, maybe a constructor } My understanding of OO is that classes are structures for data and the methods of operating on that data. This seems to preclude objects of this type. To me they are nothing more than structs and kind of defeat the purpose of OO. I don't think it's necessarily evil, though it may be a code smell. Is there a case where such objects would be necessary? If this is used often, does it make the design suspect?

    Read the article

  • Which paradigm to use for writing chess engine?

    - by poke
    If you were going to write a chess game engine, what programming paradigm would you use (OOP, procedural, etc) and why whould you choose it ? By chess engine, I mean the portion of a program that evaluates the current board and decides the computer's next move. I'm asking because I thought it might be fun to write a chess engine. Then it occured to me that I could use it as a project for learning functional programming. Then it occured to me that some problems aren't well suited to the functional paradigm. Then it occured to me that this might be good discussion fodder.

    Read the article

  • Any language where every class instance is a class too?

    - by Dokkat
    Taking inspiration from Javascript prototypes, I had the idea of a language where every instance can be used as a class. Before I potentially reinvent the wheel, I would like to ask if there is a language already using this concept: //To declare a Class, extend the base class (in this case, Type) Type(Weapon,{price:0}); //Same syntax to inherit; simply extend the parent: Weapon(Sword,{price:3}); Weapon(Axe,{price:4}); Sword(Katana,{price:7}); Sword(Dagger,{price:3}); //And the same to create an instance: Katana(myKatana,{nickname:"Leon"}); myKatana.price; // 7 myKatana.nickname; // Leon // An operator to return children of a class; Sword_; // [Katana, Dagger] // An operator to return array of descendants; Sword__; // [Katana, Dagger, myKatana] // An operator to return array of parents; Sword^; // Weapon // Arrays can be used as elements Sword__.price += 1; //increases price of Sword's descendants by 1 mySword.price; //8 // And to access specific element (using its name instead of index) var name = "mySword" Katana_[name]; // [mySword] Katana_[name].nickname; // Leon Has this kind of approach been already studied/implemented?

    Read the article

  • Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

    Read the article

  • Is throwing an error in unpredictable subclass-specific circumstances a violation of LSP?

    - by Motti Strom
    Say, I wanted to create a Java List<String> (see spec) implementation that uses a complex subsystem, such as a database or file system, for its store so that it becomes a simple persistent collection rather than an basic in-memory one. (We're limiting it specifically to a List of Strings for the purposes of discussion, but it could extended to automatically de-/serialise any object, with some help. We can also provide persistent Sets, Maps and so on in this way too.) So here's a skeleton implementation: class DbBackedList implements List<String> { private DbBackedList() {} /** Returns a list, possibly non-empty */ public static getList() { return new DbBackedList(); } public String get(int index) { return Db.getTable().getRow(i).asString(); // may throw DbExceptions! } // add(String), add(int, String), etc. ... } My problem lies with the fact that the underlying DB API may encounter connection errors that are not specified in the List interface that it should throw. My problem is whether this violates Liskov's Substitution Principle (LSP). Bob Martin actually gives an example of a PersistentSet in his paper on LSP that violates LSP. The difference is that his newly-specified Exception there is determined by the inserted value and so is strengthening the precondition. In my case the connection/read error is unpredictable and due to external factors and so is not technically a new precondition, merely an error of circumstance, perhaps like OutOfMemoryError which can occur even when unspecified. In normal circumstances, the new Error/Exception might never be thrown. (The caller could catch if it is aware of the possibility, just as a memory-restricted Java program might specifically catch OOME.) Is this therefore a valid argument for throwing an extra error and can I still claim to be a valid java.util.List (or pick your SDK/language/collection in general) and not in violation of LSP? If this does indeed violate LSP and thus not practically usable, I have provided two less-palatable alternative solutions as answers that you can comment on, see below. Footnote: Use Cases In the simplest case, the goal is to provide a familiar interface for cases when (say) a database is just being used as a persistent list, and allow regular List operations such as search, subList and iteration. Another, more adventurous, use-case is as a slot-in replacement for libraries that work with basic Lists, e.g if we have a third-party task queue that usually works with a plain List: new TaskWorkQueue(new ArrayList<String>()).start() which is susceptible to losing all it's queue in event of a crash, if we just replace this with: new TaskWorkQueue(new DbBackedList()).start() we get a instant persistence and the ability to share the tasks amongst more than one machine. In either case, we could either handle connection/read exceptions that are thrown, perhaps retrying the connection/read first, or allow them to throw and crash the program (e.g. if we can't change the TaskWorkQueue code).

    Read the article

  • How much is modern programming still tied to underyling digital logic?

    - by New Talk
    First of all: I've got no academic background. I'm working primarily with Java and Spring and I'm also fond of web programming and relational databases. I hope I'm using the right terms and I hope that this vague question makes some sense. Today the following question came to my mind: How much is modern programming still tied to the underlying digital logic? With modern programming I mean concepts like OOP, AOP, Java 7, AJAX, … I hope you get the idea. Do they no longer need the digital logic with which computers are working internally? Or is binary logic still ubiquitous when programming this way? If I'd change the inner workings of a computer overnight, would it matter, because my programming techniques are already that abstract? P. S.: With digital logic I mean the physical representation of everything "inside" the computer as zeroes and ones. Changed "binary" to "digital".

    Read the article

  • what's the point of method overloading?

    - by David
    I am following a textbook in which I have just come across method overloading. It briefly described method overloading as: when the same method name is used with different parameters its called method overloading. From what I've learned so far in OOP is that if I want different behaviors from an object via methods, I should use different method names that best indicate the behavior, so why should I bother with method overloading in the first place?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >