Search Results

Search found 41035 results on 1642 pages for 'object oriented design'.

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 371/1642 | < Previous Page | 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378  | Next Page >

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Should we denormalize database to improve performance?

    - by Groo
    We have a requirement to store 500 measurements per second, coming from several devices. Each measurement consists of a timestamp, a quantity type, and several vector values. Right now there is 8 vector values per measurement, and we may consider this number to be constant for needs of our prototype project. We are using HNibernate. Tests are done in SQLite (disk file db, not in-memory), but production will probably be MsSQL. Our Measurement entity class is the one that holds a single measurement, and looks like this: public class Measurement { public virtual Guid Id { get; private set; } public virtual Device Device { get; private set; } public virtual Timestamp Timestamp { get; private set; } public virtual IList<VectorValue> Vectors { get; private set; } } Vector values are stored in a separate table, so that each of them references its parent measurement through a foreign key. We have done a couple of things to ensure that generated SQL is (reasonably) efficient: we are using Guid.Comb for generating IDs, we are flushing around 500 items in a single transaction, ADO.Net batch size is set to 100 (I think SQLIte does not support batch updates? But it might be useful later). The problem Right now we can insert 150-200 measurements per second (which is not fast enough, although this is SQLite we are talking about). Looking at the generated SQL, we can see that in a single transaction we insert (as expected): 1 timestamp 1 measurement 8 vector values which means that we are actually doing 10x more single table inserts: 1500-2000 per second. If we placed everything (all 8 vector values and the timestamp) into the measurement table (adding 9 dedicated columns), it seems that we could increase our insert speed up to 10 times. Switching to SQL server will improve performance, but we would like to know if there might be a way to avoid unnecessary performance costs related to the way database is organized right now. [Edit] With in-memory SQLite I get around 350 items/sec (3500 single table inserts), which I believe is about as good as it gets with NHibernate (taking this post for reference: http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2009/08/22/nhibernate-perf-tricks.aspx). But I might as well switch to SQL server and stop assuming things, right? I will update my post as soon as I test it.

    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

  • Make is more OOPey - good structure?

    - by Tom
    Hi, I just want advice on whether I could improve structure around a particular class which handles all disk access functions The structure of my program is that I have a class called Disk which gets data from flatfiles and databases on a, you guessed it, hard disk drive. I have functions like LoadTextFileToStringList, WriteStringToTextFile, DeleteLineInTextFile etc which are kind of "generic methods" In the same class I also have some more specific methods such as GetXFromDisk where X might be a particular field in a database table/query. Should I separate out the generic methods from the specialised. Should I make another class which inherits the generic methods. At the moment my class is static as there is no need to have an internal state of the class. I'm not really OOPing am I? Thanks Thomas

    Read the article

  • Strategy Pattern with Type Reflection affecting Performances ?

    - by Aurélien Ribon
    Hello ! I am building graphs. A graph consists of nodes linked each other with links (indeed my dear). In order to assign a given behavior to each node, I implemented the strategy pattern. class Node { public BaseNodeBehavior Behavior {get; set;} } As a result, in many parts of the application, I am extensively using type reflection to know which behavior a node is. if (node.Behavior is NodeDataOutputBehavior) workOnOutputNode(node) .... My graph can get thousands of nodes. Is type reflection greatly affecting performances ? Should I use something else than the strategy pattern ? I'm using strategy because I need behavior inheritance. For example, basically, a behavior can be Data or Operator, a Data behavior can IO, Const or Intermediate and finally an IO behavior can be Input or Output. So if I use an enumeration, I wont be able to test for a node behavior to be of data kind, I will need to test it to be [Input, Output, Const or Intermediate]. And if later I want to add another behavior of Data kind, I'm screwed, every data-testing method will need to be changed.

    Read the article

  • Is a "factory" method the right pattern?

    - by jdt141
    Hey all - So I'm working to improve an existing implementation. I have a number of polymorphic classes that are all composed into a higher level container class. The problem I'm dealing with at the moment is that the higher level container class, well, sucks. It looks something like this, which I really don't have a problem with (as the polymorphic classes in the container should be public). My real issue is the constructor... /* * class1 and class 2 derive from the same superclass */ class Container { public: boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass1> class1; boost::shared_ptr<ComposedClass2> class2; private: ... } /* * Constructor - builds the objects that we need in this container. */ Container::Container(some params) { class1.reset(new ComposedClass1(...)); class2.reset(new ComposedClass2(...)); } What I really need is to make this container class more re-usable. By hard-coding up the member objects and instantiating them, it basically isn't and can only be used once. A factory is one way to build what I need (potentially by supplying a list of objects and their specific types to be created?) Other ways to get around this problem? Seems like someone should have solved it before... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Has anyone ever encountered a Monad Transformer in the wild?

    - by martingw
    In my area of business - back office IT for a financial institution - it is very common for a software component to carry a global configuration around, to log it's progress, to have some kind of error handling / computation short circuit... Things that can be modelled nicely by Reader-, Writer-, Maybe-monads and the like in Haskell and composed together with monad transformers. But there seem to some drawbacks: The concept behind monad transformers is quite tricky and hard to understand, monad transformers lead to very complex type signatures, and they inflict some performance penalty. So I'm wondering: Are monad transformers best practice when dealing with those common tasks mentioned above?

    Read the article

  • Getting started with nbehave

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, I am looking at using BDD, however, when evaluating the stories/conditions I write (using nBehave), how do I check if the story passes? Do I write another library with test methods? For example, if I want to test a site for having a link called "About", do I write a method which can check this and then another method in another class library which can call the method to check the link via lambda syntax and add the relevant test and bdd attributes? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Database Modeling - Either/Or in Many-to-Many

    - by EkoostikMartin
    I have an either/or type of situation in a many-to-many relationship I'm trying to model. So I have these tables: Message ---- *MessageID MessageText Employee ---- *EmployeeID EmployeeName Team ---- *TeamID TeamName MessageTarget ---- MessageID EmployeeID (nullable) TeamID (nullable) So, a Message can have either a list of Employees, or a list of Teams as a MessageTarget. Is the MessageTarget table I have above the best way to implement this relationship? What constraints can I place on the MessageTarget effectively? How should I create a primary key on MessageTarget table?

    Read the article

  • How to force grails GORM to respect DB scheme ?

    - by fabien-barbier
    I have two domains : class CodeSet { String id String owner String comments String geneRLF String systemAPF static hasMany = [cartridges:Cartridge] static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'code_set' version false columns { id column:'code_set_id', generator: 'assigned' owner column:'owner' comments column:'comments' geneRLF column:'gene_rlf' systemAPF column:'system_apf' } } and : class Cartridge { String id String code_set_id Date runDate static belongsTo = CodeSet static constraints = { id(unique:true,blank:false) } static mapping = { table 'cartridge' version false columns { id column:'cartridge_id', generator: 'assigned' code_set_id column:'code_set_id' runDate column:'run_date' } } Actually, with those models, I get tables : - code_set, - cartridge, - and table : code_set_cartridge (two fields : code_set_cartridges_id, cartridge_id) I would like to not have code_set_cartridge table, but keep relationship : code_set -- 1:n -- cartridge In other words, how can I keep association between code_set and cartridge without intermediate table ? (using code_set_id as primary key in code_set and code_set_id as foreign key in cartridge). Mapping with GORM can be done without intermediate table?

    Read the article

  • Table with a lot of attributes

    - by Robert
    Hi, I'm planing to build some database project. One of the tables have a lot of attributes. My question is: What is better, to divide the the class into 2 separate tables or put all of them into one table. below is an example create table User { id, name, surname,... show_name, show_photos, ...) or create table User { id, name, surname,... ) create table UserPrivacy {usr_id, show_name, show_photos, ...) The performance i suppose is similar due to i can use index.

    Read the article

  • Unexpected space between DIV elements, no - not padding and not margins

    - by jon
    my code for the php page displaying the divs <?php session_start(); require_once("classlib/mainspace.php"); if (isset($_SESSION['username'])==FALSE) { header("location:login.php"); } $user = new User($_SESSION['username']); ?><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style/style.css" /> <title>SimpleTask - Home</title> </head> <body> <div id="main"> <div id="menu"> <div id="items"> <ul> <li><a href="home.php">home</a></li> <li>&bull;</li> <li><a href="projects.php">my projects</a></li> <li>&bull;</li> <li><a href="comments.php">my comments</a></li> </ul> </div> <div id="user"> <p>Welcome, <?php echo $user->GetRealName(); ?><br/><a href="editprofile.php">edit profile</a> &bull; <a href="logout.php">logout</a></p> </div> </div> <div id="content"> <h1>HOME</h1> </div> <div id="footer"> <p>footer text goes here here here here</p> </div> </div> </body> </html> and you can find my CSS here http://tasker.efficaxdevelopment.com/style/style.css and to view the live page go here http://tasker.efficaxdevelopment.com/login.php username:admin password:password

    Read the article

  • Android ignoring my setWidth() and setHeight()

    - by popoffka
    So, why does this code: package org.popoffka.apicross; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.Bundle; import android.widget.Button; public class Game extends Activity { @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); Button testButton = new Button(this); testButton.setBackgroundResource(R.drawable.cell); testButton.setWidth(20); testButton.setHeight(20); setContentView(testButton); } } ...produce this thing: http://i42.tinypic.com/2hgdzme.png even though there's a setWidth(20) and setHeight(20) in the code? (R.drawable.cell is actually a 20x20 PNG image containing a white cell with a silver border)

    Read the article

  • Using DTOs and BOs

    - by ryanzec
    One area of question for me about DTOs/BOs is about when to pass/return the DTOs and when to pass/return the BOs. My gut reaction tells me to always map NHibernate to the DTOs, not BOs, and always pass/return the DTOs. Then whenever I needed to perform business logic, I would convert my DTO into a BO. The way I would do this is that my BO would have a have a constructor that takes a parameter that is the type of my interface (that defines the required fields/properties) that both my DTO and BO implement as the only argument. Then I would be able to create my BO by passing it the DTO in the constructor (since both with implement the same interface, they both with have the same properties) and then be able to perform my business logic with that BO. I would then also have a way to convert a BO to a DTO. However, I have also seen where people seem to only work with BOs and only work with DTOs in the background where to the user, it looks like there are no DTOs. What benefits/downfalls are there with this architecture vs always using BO's? Should I always being passing/returning either DTOs or BOs or mix and match (seems like mixing and matching could get confusing)?

    Read the article

  • Coding without Grock. Is it wrong?

    - by OldCurmudgeon
    Should a professional programmer allow themselves to write code without completely understanding the requirements? In my 30+ years as a programmer I must have written many thousands of lines of code without completely understanding what is required of me at the time. In most cases the results were rubbish that should have been discarded. Every other industry that employs professionals has systems to root out such behavior. Ours does not. Is this right?

    Read the article

  • How extensible should code actually be?

    - by griegs
    I've just started a new job and one of the things my new boss talked to me about was code longevity. I've always coded to make my code infinently extensible and adaptable. I figured that if someone was going to change my code in the future then it should be easy to do. But I never really had a clear idea on how far into the future that should be. So my new boss told me not to bother coding for anything more that 3 years into the future and his reasoning was that technology changes, programs expire etc. At first I was kinda taken aback and thought he was a whack job but the longer I think about it the more I'm warming to the concept. Does anyone else have an opinion on how far into the future you should code to?

    Read the article

  • Database model for saving random boolean expressions

    - by zarko.susnjar
    I have expressions like this: (cat OR cats OR kitten OR kitty) AND (dog OR dogs) NOT (pigeon OR firefly) Anyone having idea how to make tables to save those? Before I got request for usage of brackets, I limited usage of operators to avoid ambiguous situations. So only ANDs and NOTs or only ORs and saved those in this manner: operators id | name 1 | AND 2 | OR 3 | NOT keywords id | keyword 1 | cat 2 | dog 3 | firefly expressions id | operator | keywordId 1 | 0 | 1 1 | 1 | 2 1 | 3 | 3 which was: cat AND dog NOT firefly But now, I'm really puzzled...

    Read the article

  • Include everything, Separate with "using"

    - by Dave
    I'm developing a C++ library. It got me thinking of the ways Java and C# handle including different components of the libraries. For example, Java uses "import" to allow use of classes from other packages, while C# simply uses "using" to import entire modules. My questions is, would it be a good idea to #include everything in the library in one massive include and then just use the using directive to import specific classes and modules? Or would this just be down right crazy? EDIT: Good responses so far, here are a few mitigating factors which I feel add to this idea: 1) Internal #includes are kept as normal (short and to the point) 2) The file which includes everything is optionally supplied with the library to those who wish to use it3) You could optionally make the big include file part of the pre-compiled header

    Read the article

  • Is there a recommended way to use the Observer pattern in MVP using GWT?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    I am thinking about implementing a user interface according to the MVP pattern using GWT, but have doubts about how to proceed. These are (some of) my goals: - the presenter knows nothing about the UI technology (i.e. uses nothing from com.google.*) - the view knows nothing about the model or the presenter - the model knows nothing of the view or the presenter (...obviously) I would place an interface between the view and the presenter and use the Observer pattern to decouple the two: the view generates events and the presenter gets notified. What confuses me is that java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable are not supported in GWT. This suggests that what I'm doing is not the recommended way to do it, as far as GWT is concerned, which leads me to my questions: what is the recommended way to implement MVP using GWT, specifically with the above goals in mind? How would you do it?

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    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 | 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378  | Next Page >