Search Results

Search found 53297 results on 2132 pages for 'web design hero'.

Page 263/2132 | < Previous Page | 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270  | Next Page >

  • Embarking on a website redevelopment and all developers pushing to move to ASP.NET 4.0

    - by Sue
    Our company is going through a website redevelopment / retooling exercise and we are not quite sure which direction to take. We are told that the website was built in ASP classic and that we should be moving to ASP.NET 4.0. Some developers refuse to do any work in the ASP classic framework citing the advantages of ASP.NET 4.0-- stability, compilation, language support. We are generally happy with our website as is. There are some kinks in the backend involving forms and there is little integration between the CRM of the website and any content management system. Does the move from ASP classic to ASP.NET 4.0 give major advantages to the integration between how content is created, and delivered to our customers?

    Read the article

  • Is there a rule of thumb for what a bing map's zoom setting should be based on how many miles you want to display?

    - by Clay Shannon
    If a map contains pushpins/waypoints that span only a couple of miles, the map should be zoomed way in and show a lot of detail. If the pushpins/waypoints instead cover vast areas, such as hundreds or even thousands of miles, it should be zoomed way out. That's clear. My question is: is there a general guideline for mapping (no pun intended) Bing Maps zoom levels to a particular number of miles that separate the furthest apart points? e.g., is there some chart that has something like: Zoom level N shows 2 square miles Zoom level N shows 5 square miles etc.?

    Read the article

  • Resources on how to relate structured and semi- / un-structured information

    - by Fritz Meissner
    I don't have a great background in information organisation / retrieval, but I know of a few ways of dealing with the problem. For structured information, it's possible to go OOish - everything "has-a" or "has-many" something else, and you navigate the graph to find relationships between things. For unstructured information, you have techniques like text search and tagging. What resources - articles or books - are there that summarise the CS theory behind these techniques or could introduce me to others? I'm developing a system that needs to handle capture and retrieval of information that ranges from necessarily unstructured (advice about X) to structured (list of Xs that relate to Ys) to a combination (Ys that relate to the advice about X) and I'd like to get some insight into how to do it properly.

    Read the article

  • Platforms for sharing content and expertise

    - by Thomas
    Are there any platforms / sites where people can share expertise in game development and where you can share (either payed or free) digital content (like images, sounds, animations but also frameworks or libraries) to be used in games? I'd also like the possibility to contact users and request specific pieces of content. I'd like to start out as an indie developer and have programming skills but I lack the experience and time to create ingame artwork and sound. Is there any site where I could locate other people (artists mostly) who would want to work on a game for free? I know I can get most technical questions answered on this site and I have some contacts but I'm affraid this won't be enough.

    Read the article

  • signal processing libraries

    - by khinester
    Are there any open source libraries/projects which work in a similar way to http://www.tagattitude.fr/en/products/technology? I am trying to understand the process. At first I thought this could work like when you send a fax to a fax machine. It is basically using the mobile phone’s microphone as a captor and its audio channel as a transporter. Are there any libraries for generating the signal and then being able to decode it?

    Read the article

  • RTS game diplomacy heuristics

    - by kd304
    I'm reimplementing an old 4X space-rts game which has diplomacy options. The original was based on a relation scoring system (0..100) and a set of negotiation options (improve relations, alliance, declare war, etc.) The AI player usually had 3 options: yes, maybe and no; each adding or removing some amount to the relation score. How should the AI chose between the options? How does the diplomacy work in other games and how are they imlemented? Any good books/articles on the subject? (Googling the term diplomacy yields the game Diplomacy, which is unhelpful.)

    Read the article

  • Game Development Blog Aggregators [duplicate]

    - by Eric Richards
    This question already has an answer here: Game development Blogs [closed] 57 answers I'm a big fan of link collection blogs like Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew, Jason Haley's Interesting Finds, and Chris Alcock's The Morning Brew for aggregating interesting blogs on .Net related development stuff. I'd like to find something similar for game development blogs. I follow GameDev.net's articles and developer journals, and #AltDevBlogADay, but would love to see some more, if anyone knows of any interesting links.

    Read the article

  • Generic Repository with SQLite and SQL Compact Databases

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

    Read the article

  • How do I overcome paralysis by analysis when coding?

    - by LuxuryMode
    When I start a new project, I often times immediately start thinking about the details of implementation. "Where am I gonna put the DataBaseHandler? How should I use it? Should classes that want to use it extend from some Abstract superclass..? Should I an interface? What level of abstraction am I going to use in my class that contains methods for sending requests and parsing data?" I end up stalling for a long time because I want to code for extensibility and reusability. But I feel it almost impossible to get past thinking about how to implement perfectly. And then, if I try to just say "screw it, just get it done!", I hit a brick wall pretty quickly because my code isn't organized, I mixed levels of abstractions, etc. What are some techniques/methods you have for launching into a new project while also setting up a logical/modular structure that will scale well?

    Read the article

  • Is the 'C' in MVC really necessary?

    - by Anne Nonimus
    I understand the role of the model and view in the Model-View-Controller pattern, but I have a hard time understanding why a controller is necessary. Let's assume we're creating a chess program using an MVC approach; the game state should be the model, and the GUI should be the view. What exactly is the controller in this case? Is it just a separate class that has all the functions that will be called when you, say, click on a tile? Why not just perform all the logic on the model in the view itself?

    Read the article

  • Absolute statements in IT that are wrong

    - by Dan McGrath
    I was recently in a discussion about the absolute statement "It costs more in programming time to optimise software than it costs to throw hardware at a problem". The general thought (of which I agree with) is that as an absolute statement this is wrong. There are too many variables to ever generalise in such a way. What other statements do you hear about software/programming that simply do not work as an absolute and why?

    Read the article

  • Style bits vs. Separate bool's

    - by peterchen
    My main platform (WinAPI) still heavily uses bits for control styles etc. (example). When introducing custom controls, I'm permanently wondering whether to follow that style or rather use individual bool's. Let's pit them against each other: enum EMyCtrlStyles { mcsUseFileIcon = 1, mcsTruncateFileName = 2, mcsUseShellContextMenu = 4, }; void SetStyle(DWORD mcsStyle); void ModifyStyle(DWORD mcsRemove, DWORD mcsAdd); DWORD GetStyle() const; ... ctrl.SetStyle(mcsUseFileIcon | mcsUseShellContextMenu); vs. CMyCtrl & SetUseFileIcon(bool enable = true); bool GetUseFileIcon() const; CMyCtrl & SetTruncteFileName(bool enable = true); bool GetTruncteFileName() const; CMyCtrl & SetUseShellContextMenu(bool enable = true); bool GetUseShellContextMenu() const; ctrl.SetUseFileIcon().SetUseShellContextMenu(); As I see it, Pro Style Bits Consistent with platform less library code (without gaining complexity), less places to modify for adding a new style less caller code (without losing notable readability) easier to use in some scenarios (e.g. remembering / transferring settings) Binary API remains stable if new style bits are introduced Now, the first and the last are minor in most cases. Pro Individual booleans Intellisense and refactoring tools reduce the "less typing" effort Single Purpose Entities more literate code (as in "flows more like a sentence") No change of paradim for non-bool properties These sound more modern, but also "soft" advantages. I must admit the "platform consistency" is much more enticing than I could justify, the less code without losing much quality is a nice bonus. 1. What do you prefer? Subjectively, for writing the library, or for writing client code? 2. Any (semi-) objective statements, studies, etc.?

    Read the article

  • Solid principles vs YAGNI

    - by KeesDijk
    When do the SOLID principles become YAGNI. As programmers we make trade-off's all the time, between complexity, maintainabillity, time to build and so forth.Amongst others. two of the smartest guidelines for making choices are in my mind the SOLID principles and YAGNI. If you don't need it, dont build it and keep it clean. Now for example when i watch the dimecast series on SOLID I see it start out as a fairly simple programm and ending up prettty complex (end yes complexity is also in the eye of the beholder) but it still makes me wonder, when do SOLID principles turn into something you don't need. All solid principles are ways of working that enable use te make changes at a later stage. But what if the problem to solve is a pretty simple one and it's a through away application, than what ? Or are the SOLID principles something that apply always ?

    Read the article

  • Procedural world generation oriented on gameplay features

    - by Richard Fabian
    In large procedural landscape games, the land seems dull, but that's probably because the real world is largely dull, with only limited places where the scenery is dramatic or tactical. Looking at world generation from this point of view, a landscape generator for a game needs to not follow the rules of landscaping, but instead some rules married to the expectations of the gamer. For example, there could be a choke point / route generator that creates hills ravines, rivers and mountains between cities, rather than cities plotted on the land based on the resources or conditions generated by the mountains and rainfall patterns. Is there any existing work being done like this? Start with cities or population centres and then add in terrain afterwards?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid big and clumpsy UITableViewController on iOS?

    - by Johan Karlsson
    I have a problem when implementing the MVC-pattern on iOS. I have searched the Internet but seems not to find any nice solution to this problem. Many UITableViewController implementations seems to be rather big. Most example I have seen lets the UITableViewController implement UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. These implementations are a big reason why UITableViewControlleris getting big. One solution would be to create separate classes that implements UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. Of course these classes would have to have a reference to the UITableViewController. Are there any drawbacks using this solution? In general I think you should delegate the functionality to other "Helper" classes or similar, using the delegate pattern. Are there any well established ways of solving this problem? I do not want the model to contain to much functionality, nor the view. A believe that the logic should really be in the controller class, since this is one of the cornerstones of the MVC-pattern. But the big question is; How should you divide the controller of a MVC-implementation into smaller manageable pieces? (Applies to MVC in iOS in this case) There might be a general pattern for solving this, although I am specifically looking for a solution for iOS. Please give an example of a good pattern for solving this issue. Also an argument why this solution is awesome.

    Read the article

  • Did the developers of Java conciously abandon RAII?

    - by JoelFan
    As a long-time C# programmer, I have recently come to learn more about the advantages of Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII). In particular, I have discovered that the C# idiom: using (my dbConn = new DbConnection(connStr) { // do stuff with dbConn } has the C++ equivalent: { DbConnection dbConn(connStr); // do stuff with dbConn } meaning that remembering to enclose the use of resources like DbConnection in a using block is unnecessary in C++ ! This seems to a major advantage of C++. This is even more convincing when you consider a class that has an instance member of type DbConnection, for example class Foo { DbConnection dbConn; // ... } In C# I would need to have Foo implement IDisposable as such: class Foo : IDisposable { DbConnection dbConn; public void Dispose() { dbConn.Dispose(); } } and what's worse, every user of Foo would need to remember to enclose Foo in a using block, like: using (var foo = new Foo()) { // do stuff with "foo" } Now looking at C# and its Java roots I am wondering... did the developers of Java fully appreciate what they were giving up when they abandoned the stack in favor of the heap, thus abandoning RAII? (Similarly, did Stroustrup fully appreciate the significance of RAII?)

    Read the article

  • Builder Pattern: When to fail?

    - by skiwi
    When implementing the Builder Pattern, I often find myself confused with when to let building fail and I even manage to take different stands on the matter every few days. First some explanation: With failing early I mean that building an object should fail as soon as an invalid parameter is passed in. So inside the SomeObjectBuilder. With failing late I mean that building an object only can fail on the build() call that implicitely calls a constructor of the object to be built. Then some arguments: In favor of failing late: A builder class should be no more than a class that simply holds values. Moreover, it leads to less code duplication. In favor of failing early: A general approach in software programming is that you want to detect issues as early as possible and therefore the most logical place to check would be in the builder class' constructor, 'setters' and ultimately in the build method. What is the general concensus about this?

    Read the article

  • Is catching general exceptions really a bad thing?

    - by Bob Horn
    I typically agree with most code analysis warnings, and I try to adhere to them. However, I'm having a harder time with this one: CA1031: Do not catch general exception types I understand the rationale for this rule. But, in practice, if I want to take the same action regardless of the exception thrown, why would I handle each one specifically? Furthermore, if I handle specific exceptions, what if the code I'm calling changes to throw a new exception in the future? Now I have to change my code to handle that new exception. Whereas if I simply caught Exception my code doesn't have to change. For example, if Foo calls Bar, and Foo needs to stop processing regardless of the type of exception thrown by Bar, is there any advantage in being specific about the type of exception I'm catching?

    Read the article

  • Should these concerns be separated into separate objects?

    - by Lewis Bassett
    I have objects which implement the interface BroadcastInterface, which represents a message that is to be broadcast to all users of a particular group. It has a setter and getter method for the Subject and Body properties, and an addRecipientRole() method, which takes a given role and finds the contact token (e.g., an email address) for each user in the role and stores it. It then has a getContactTokens() method. BroadcastInterface objects are passed to an object that implements BroadcasterInterface. These objects are responsible for broadcasting a passed BroadcastInterface object. For example, an EmailBroadcaster implementation of the BroadcasterInterface will take EmailBroadcast objects and use the mailer services to email them out. Now, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used to broadcast, a different implementation of BroadcastInterface is used by client code. The Single Responsibility Principle seems to suggest that I should have a separate BroadcastFactory object, for creating BroadcastInterface objects, depending on what BroadcasterInterface implementation is used, as creating the BroadcastInterface object is a different responsibility to broadcasting them. But the class used for creating BroadcastInterface objects depends on what implementation of BroadcasterInterface is used to broadcast them. I think, because the knowledge of what method is used to send the broadcasts should only be configured once, the BroadcasterInterface object should be responsible for providing new BroadcastInterface objects. Does the responsibility of “creating and broadcasting objects that implement the BroadcastInterface interface” violate the Single Responsibility Principle? (Because the contact token for sending the broadcast out to the users will differ depending on the way it is broadcasted, I need different broadcast classes—though client code will not be able to tell the difference.)

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to a leveling system

    - by Bane
    I'm currently designing a rough prototype of a mecha fighting game. These are the basics I came up with: Multiplayer (matchmaking for up to 10 people, for now) Browser based (HTML5) 2D (<canvas>) Persistent (as in, players have accounts and don't have to use a new mech each time they start a match) Players earn money upon destroying another mech, which is used to buy parts (guns, armor, boosters, etc) Simplicity (both of the game itself, and of the development of said game) No "leveling" (as in, players don't get awarded with XP) The last part is bothering me. At first, I wanted to have players gain experience points (XP) when destroying other mechs, but gaining two things at once (money and XP) seemed to be in conflict with my last point, which is simplicity. If I were to have a leveling system, that would require additional development. But, the biggest problem is that I simply couldn't fit it anywhere! Adding levels would require adding meaning to these levels, and most of the things that I hoped to achieve could already be achieved with the money mechanic I introduced. So I decided to drop leveling off completely. That, in turn, removed a fairly popular and robust mean of progression in games from my game (not that I would use it well anyway). Is there another way of progression in games, aside from leveling and XP points, that wouldn't get rendered redundant by my money mechanic, would be somehow meaningful (even on a symbolic level), and wouldn't be in conflict with my last point, which is simplicity?

    Read the article

  • What is the right way to process inconsistent data files?

    - by Tahabi
    I'm working at a company that uses Excel files to store product data, specifically, test results from products before they are shipped out. There are a few thousand spreadsheets with anywhere from 50-100 relevant data points per file. Over the years, the schema for the spreadsheets has changed significantly, but not unidirectionally - in the sense that, changes often get reverted and then re-added in the space of a few dozen to few hundred files. My project is to convert about 8000 of these spreadsheets into a database that can be queried. I'm using MongoDB to deal with the inconsistency in the data, and Python. My question is, what is the "right" or canonical way to deal with the huge variance in my source files? I've written a data structure which stores the data I want for the latest template, which will be the final template used going forward, but that only helps for a few hundred files historically. Brute-forcing a solution would mean writing similar data structures for each version/template - which means potentially writing hundreds of schemas with dozens of fields each. This seems very inefficient, especially when sometimes a change in the template is as little as moving a single line of data one row down or splitting what used to be one data field into two data fields. A slightly more elegant solution I have in mind would be writing schemas for all the variants I can find for pre-defined groups in the source files, and then writing a function to match a particular series of files with a series of variants that matches that set of files. This is because, more often that not, most of the file will remain consistent over a long period, only marred by one or two errant sections, but inside the period, which section is inconsistent, is inconsistent. For example, say a file has four sections with three data fields, which is represented by four Python dictionaries with three keys each. For files 7000-7250, sections 1-3 will be consistent, but section 4 will be shifted one row down. For files 7251-7500, 1-3 are consistent, section 4 is one row down, but a section five appears. For files 7501-7635, sections 1 and 3 will be consistent, but section 2 will have five data fields instead of three, section five disappears, and section 4 is still shifted down one row. For files 7636-7800, section 1 is consistent, section 4 gets shifted back up, section 2 returns to three cells, but section 3 is removed entirely. Files 7800-8000 have everything in order. The proposed function would take the file number and match it to a dictionary representing the data mappings for different variants of each section. For example, a section_four_variants dictionary might have two members, one for the shifted-down version, and one for the normal version, a section_two_variants might have three and five field members, etc. The script would then read the matchings, load the correct mapping, extract the data, and insert it into the database. Is this an accepted/right way to go about solving this problem? Should I structure things differently? I don't know what to search Google for either to see what other solutions might be, though I believe the problem lies in the domain of ETL processing. I also have no formal CS training aside from what I've taught myself over the years. If this is not the right forum for this question, please tell me where to move it, if at all. Any help is most appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Accessing Repositories from Domain

    - by Paul T Davies
    Say we have a task logging system, when a task is logged, the user specifies a category and the task defaults to a status of 'Outstanding'. Assume in this instance that Category and Status have to be implemented as entities. Normally I would do this: Application Layer: public class TaskService { //... public void Add(Guid categoryId, string description) { var category = _categoryRepository.GetById(categoryId); var status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId); var task = Task.Create(category, status, description); _taskRepository.Save(task); } } Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, Status status, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = status, Description = descrtiption }; } } I do it like this because I am consistently told that entities should not access the repositories, but it would make much more sense to me if I did this: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { return new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; } } The status repository is dependecy injected anyway, so there is no real dependency, and this feels more to me thike it is the domain that is making thedecision that a task defaults to outstanding. The previous version feels like it is the application layeer making that decision. Any why are repository contracts often in the domain if this should not be a posibility? Here is a more extreme example, here the domain decides urgency: Entity: public class Task { //... public static void Create(Category category, string description) { var task = new Task { Category = category, Status = _statusRepository.GetById(Constants.Status.OutstandingId), Description = descrtiption }; if(someCondition) { if(someValue > anotherValue) { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.UrgentId); } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.SemiUrgentId); } } else { task.Urgency = _urgencyRepository.GetById (Constants.Urgency.NotId); } return task; } } There is no way you would want to pass in all possible versions of Urgency, and no way you would want to calculate this business logic in the application layer, so surely this would be the most appropriate way? So is this a valid reason to access repositories from the domain?

    Read the article

  • Is it appropriate for a class to only be a collection of information with no logic?

    - by qegal
    Say I have a class Person that has instance variables age, weight, and height, and another class Fruit that has instance variables sugarContent and texture. The Person class has no methods save setters and getters, while the Fruit class has both setters and getters and logic methods like calculateSweetness. Is the Fruit class the type of class that is better practice than the Person class. What I mean by this is that the Person class seems like it doesn't have much purpose; it exists solely to organize data, while the Fruit class organizes data and actually contains methods for logic.

    Read the article

  • Bot strategy in an arena

    - by joulesm
    I am writing the player's behavior for an arena game, and I'm wondering if you could offer some strategies. I'm writing it in Python, but I'm just interested in the high level game play. Here are the game aspects: Arena is a circle of a given size. The arena's size shrinks every round to help break any ties. Players are much smaller circles, and can be on teams of 1 or 2 players. Players attack by colliding with other players, and based on the physics of the collision (speed of both players, angle), one could force another player out of the arena. Once a player is out of the arena, they are out of the game (for that round). The goal is to be on the only team with players left in the arena. All other players have been pushed (through collisions or mistakes) out of the arena. It is possible for there to be no winner if the last two players exit the arena at the same time. Once the player has been programmed, the game just runs. There is no human intervention in the game. I'm thinking it's easiest to implement a few simple programmatic rules for my player to follow. For example, stay close to center of the arena, attack opponents from the inner side of the arena, etc. Are there any good simple game strategies? Would adding a random aspect to the game help? For example, to avoid predictability by the other team or something. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270  | Next Page >