Search Results

Search found 40870 results on 1635 pages for 'database design'.

Page 434/1635 | < Previous Page | 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441  | Next Page >

  • algorithm || method to write prog

    - by fatai
    I am one of the computer science student. My wonder is everyone solve problem with different or same method, but actually I dont know whether they use method or I dont know whether there are such common method to approach problem. All teacher give us problem which in simple form sometimes, but they dont introduce any approach or method(s) so that we can first choose method then apply that one to problem , afterward find solution then write code. I have found one method when I failed the course, More accurately, When I counter problem in language , I will get more paper and then ; first, input/ output step ; my prog will take this / these there argument(s) and return namely X , ex : in c, input length is not known and at same type , so I must use pointer desired output is in form of package , so use structure second, execution part ; in that step , I am writing all step which are goes to final output ex : in python ; 1.) [ + , [- , 4 , [ * , 1 , 2 ]], 5] 2.) [ + , [- , 4 , 2 ],5 ] 3.) [ + , 2 , 5] 4.) 7 ==> return 7 third, I will write test code ex : in c++ input : append 3 4 5 6 vector_x remove 0 1 desired output vector_x holds : 5 6 But now, I wonder other method ; used to construct class :::: for c++ , python, java used to communicate classes / computers used for solving embedded system problem ::::: for c Why I wonder , because I learn if you dont costruct algorithm on paper, you may achieve your goal. Like no money no lunch , I can say no algorithm no prog therefore , feel free when you write your own method , a way which is introduced by someone else but you are using and you find it is so efficient

    Read the article

  • When should I use Dependency Injection and when utility methods?

    - by Roman
    I have a Java EE project with Spring IoC container. I've just found in Utils class static method sendMail(long list of params). I don't know why but I feel that it would look better if we had separate class (Spring bean with singleton scope) which will be responsible for sending email. But I can't find any arguments which can prove my position. So, are there any pros (or cons) in using DI in this (rather general) situation?

    Read the article

  • How strict to be when using Qt framework?

    - by toffeehoops
    I'm building a Qt application that needs to use libssh, a SSH client library. libssh (understandably) performs its own network connections, however Qt has its own infrastructure for network connections (QTcpSocket etc). Should I worry about these differences? Should I be trying to make libssh make network connections via QTcpSocket... Or if it works fine on the platforms I'm targeting, is that good enough?

    Read the article

  • When to use CouchDB vs RDBMS

    - by Andrew Whitehouse
    I am looking at CouchDB, which has a number of appealing features over relational databases including: intuitive REST/HTTP interface easy replication data stored as documents, rather than normalised tables I appreciate that this is not a mature product so should be adopted with caution, but am wondering whether it is actually a viable replacement for an RDBMS (in spite of the intro page saying otherwise - http://couchdb.apache.org/docs/intro.html). Under what circumstances would CouchDB be a better choice of database than an RDBMS (e.g. MySQL), e.g. in terms of scalability, design + development time, reliability and maintenance. Are there still cases where an RDBMS is still clearly the right choice? Is this an either-or choice, or is a hybrid solution more likely to emerge as best practice?

    Read the article

  • To Wrap or Not to Wrap: Wrapping Data Access in a Service Facade

    - by PureCognition
    For a while now, my team and I have been wrapping our data access layer in a web service facade (using WCF) and calling it from the business logic layer. Meanwhile, we could simply use the repository pattern where the business logic layer consumes the data access layer locally through an interface, and at any point in time, we can switch things out for it to hit a service instead (if necessary). The question is: When is it a good time to wrap the data access layer in a service facade and when isn't it? Right now, it seems like the main advantage is that other applications can consume the service, but if they are internal applications written in .NET then they can just consume the .NET assembly instead. Are there other advantages of having the DAL be wrapped in a service that I am unaware of?

    Read the article

  • Structuring Win32 GUI code

    - by kraf
    I wish to improve my code and file structure in larger Win32 projects with plenty of windows and controls. Currently, I tend to have one header and one source file for the entire implementation of a window or dialog. This works fine for small projects, but now it has come to the point where these implementations are starting to reach 1000-2000 lines, which is tedious to browse. A typical source file of mine looks like this: static LRESULT CALLBACK on_create(const HWND hwnd, WPARAM wp, LPARAM lp) { setup_menu(hwnd); setup_list(hwnd); setup_context_menu(hwnd); /* clip */ return 0; } static LRESULT CALLBACK on_notify(HWND hwnd, UINT msg, WPARAM wp, LPARAM lp) { const NMHDR* header = (const NMHDR*)lp; /* At this point I feel that the control's event handlers doesn't * necessarily belong in the same source file. Perhaps I could move * each control's creation code and event handlers into a separate * source file? Good practice or cause of confusion? */ switch (header->idFrom) { case IDC_WINDOW_LIST: switch (header->code) { case NM_RCLICK: return on_window_list_right_click(hwnd, wp, lp); /* clip */ } } } static LRESULT CALLBACK wndmain_proc(HWND hwnd, UINT msg, WPARAM wp, LPARAM lp) { switch (msg) { case WM_CREATE: return on_create(hwnd, wp, lp); case WM_CLOSE: return on_close(hwnd, wp, lp); case WM_NOTIFY: return on_notify(hwnd, wp, lp); /* It doesn't matter much how the window proc looks as it just forwards * events to the appropriate handler. */ /* clip */ default: return DefWindowProc(hwnd, msg, wp, lp); } } But now as the window has a lot more controls, and these controls in turn have their own message handlers, and then there's the menu click handlers, and so on... I'm getting lost, and I really need advice on how to structure this mess up in a good and sensible way. I have tried to find good open source examples of structuring Win32 code, but I just get more confused since there are hundreds of files, and within each of these files that seem GUI related, the Win32 GUI code seems so far encapsulated away. And when I finally find a CreateWindowEx statement, the window proc is nowhere to be found. Any advice on how to structure all the code while remaining sane would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! I don't wish to use any libraries or frameworks as I find the Win32 API interesting and valuable for learning. Any insight into how you structure your own GUI code could perhaps serve as inspiration.

    Read the article

  • Testing chess game

    - by mousey
    There is a software for chess game and we need to test the following method: boolean canMoveTo(int x, int y) x and y are the coordinates of the chess board and it returns true/false whether the piece can move to that position or not. We need to test this method for a pawn piece and you can set up the board any way you like prior to running a test case. Source code is not provided

    Read the article

  • Looking for some thoughts on an image printing app

    - by Alex
    Hey All, Im looking for thoughts/advice. I have an upcoming project (all .net) that will require the following: pulls data once a day from an online service provider based on certain criteria. saves data locally for reference and reporting the data thats pulled will be used to create gift cards. So after the data is loaded, a process will run to generate "virtual cards" and send them to a network printer. Once printed, the system will updated the local data recording a successful or failed print. My initial thought was to create a windows service to pull the data...but then I couldnt decide how I was going to put a "virtual card" together and get it to print. Then I considered doing it as a WPF app. I figure that will give me access to the graphics and printing ability. Maybe neither of these are the right direction....Any ideas or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Alex

    Read the article

  • Haskell: "how much" of a type should functions receive? and avoiding complete "reconstruction"

    - by L01man
    I've got these data types: data PointPlus = PointPlus { coords :: Point , velocity :: Vector } deriving (Eq) data BodyGeo = BodyGeo { pointPlus :: PointPlus , size :: Point } deriving (Eq) data Body = Body { geo :: BodyGeo , pict :: Color } deriving (Eq) It's the base datatype for characters, enemies, objects, etc. in my game (well, I just have two rectangles as the player and the ground right now :p). When a key, the characters moves right, left or jumps by changing its velocity. Moving is done by adding the velocity to the coords. Currently, it's written as follows: move (PointPlus (x, y) (xi, yi)) = PointPlus (x + xi, y + yi) (xi, yi) I'm just taking the PointPlus part of my Body and not the entire Body, otherwise it would be: move (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus (x, y) (xi, yi)) wh) col) = (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus (x + xi, y + yi) (xi, yi)) wh) col) Is the first version of move better? Anyway, if move only changes PointPlus, there must be another function that calls it inside a new Body. I explain: there's a function update which is called to update the game state; it is passed the current game state, a single Body for now, and returns the updated Body. update (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus xy (xi, yi)) wh) pict) = (Body (BodyGeo (move (PointPlus xy (xi, yi))) wh) pict) That tickles me. Everything is kept the same within Body except the PointPlus. Is there a way to avoid this complete "reconstruction" by hand? Like in: update body = backInBody $ move $ pointPlus body Without having to define backInBody, of course.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for DAO pattern ?

    - by Tony
    I've seen a lot of codes use a service-dao pattern , I don't know the origin of this pattern . It force the front layer call service , then delegates some of the service task to dao. I want to ask : Does DAO layer do purely data access related task ? What about exception encapsulation ? Is there other pattern can be used to replace this ?

    Read the article

  • Star-schema: Separate dimensions for clients and non-clients or shared dimension for attendants?

    - by celopes
    I'm new to modeling star schemas, fresh from reading the Data Warehouse Toolkit. I have a business process that has clients and non-clients calling into conference calls with some of our employees. My fact table, call it "Audience", will contain a measure of how long an attending person was connected to the call, and the cost per minute of this person's connection to the call. The grain is "individual connection to the conference call". Should I use my conformed Client dimension and create a non-client dimension (for the callers that are not yet clients) this way (omitting dimensions that are not part of this questions): Or would it be OK/better to have a non-conformed Attending dimension related to the conformed Client dimension in this manner: Or is there a better/standard mechanism to model business processes like this one?

    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

  • When to release the model(representedObject) of the corresponding UIViewController.

    - by user313786
    Hi, In AppKit we have "representedObject" available through NSViewController, this representedObject is generally set to ModelController or the model which the NSViewController displays, this works great with bindings as you just set the new representedObject and model details are updated in the view, BUT in case of iPhone (UIKit, with NO Cocoa bindings available), there is no such representedObject in UIViewController so here are few things I am interested in knowing:- What is the best/recommended way of binding the model to the UIViewController?, preferably dont want to maintain lot of IBOutlets and calls setters to updated the changed model data for display in view. How/When should the related model of the UIViewController be released? When is the -[UIViewController dealloc] called, in the typical iPhone application. Am looking for architecting some classes so that the UIViewController coordinates between the view and the model, but at the same time, deallocs the model when ever not necessary. TIA.

    Read the article

  • "Sketch" mockup tool that supports hyperlinking?

    - by Gayle
    Balsamiq Mockup is nice, but I'd like something similar that could produce something that I could distribute to clients that would allow them to click on elements and move between the mockups. Not looking for any fancy navigation - just the ability to move from on screen to the other based on what it click - like "hyperlinked regions". I find that end-users often find it difficult to understand the flow of the application from a set of static mockups. I really like the "hand-drawn" look as it stops end-users focusing on the detail too early, so I want something with that kind of feel. Does Sketchflow provide this kind of functionality? Are there other tools that provide what I'm looking for?

    Read the article

  • Designer tool integration with TFS?

    - by reallyJim
    Are there good tools for professional designers to use that support source control integration with Team Foundation Server? I'm aware of the Expression tools, but curious to see if there is something else, as proper designer tools really aren't my area of expertise.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • Subversion Repository Layout

    - by Tim Long
    Most subversion tools create a default repository layout with /trunk, /branches and /tags. The documentation also recommends not using separate repositories for each project, so that code can be more easily shared. Following that advice has led to me having a repository with the following layout: /trunk /Project1 /Project2 /branches /Project1 /Project2 /tags /Project1 /Project2 and so on, you get the idea. Over time, I've found this structure a bit clumsy and it occurred to me that there's an alternative interpretation of the recommendations, such as: /Project1 /trunk /branches /tags /Project2 /trunk /branches /tags So, which layout do people use, and why? Or - is there another way to do things that I've completely missed?

    Read the article

  • Why are alloc and init called separately in Objective-C?

    - by André Hoffmann
    Note: I'm relatively new to Objective-C and am coming from Java and PHP. Could someone explain to me why I always have to first allocate and then initialize an instance? Couldn't this be done in the init methods like this: + (MyClass*)init { MyClass *instance = [MyClass alloc]; [instance setFoo:@"bla"]; return instance; } + (MyClass*)initWithString:(NSString*)text { MyClass *instance = [MyClass init]; [instance setFoo:text]; return instance; } ... Is this just a relict from the old C days or is there something that I'm not seeing? I know this isn't a problem as I could as well always call alloc and init, but since it's a bit tedious I'd like to at least know why I'm doing it. I'm liking the expressiveness of the language so far, but this is something that I want to fully understand in order to think the Objective-C way. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • How does a WCF server inform a WCF client about changes? (Better solution then simple polling, e.g.

    - by Ian Ringrose
    see also "WCF push to client through firewall" I need to have a WCF client that connect to a WCF server, then when some of the data changes on the server the clients need to update its display. As there is likely to be a firewall between the clients and the server. All communications must be over HTTP The server can not make an (physical) outgoing call to the client. As I am writing both the client and the server I do not need to limit the solution to only using soap etc. I am looking for built in surport for "long polling" / "Comet" etc Thanks for the most informative answer from Drew Marsh on how to implement long polling in WCF. However I thought the main “selling point” of WCF was that you could do this sort of thing just by configuring the channels to be used in the config file. E.g I want a channel that logically two way but physically incoming only.

    Read the article

  • What are practical guidelines for evaluating a language's "Turing Completeness"?

    - by AShelly
    I've read "what-is-turing-complete" and the wikipedia page, but I'm less interested in a formal proof than in the practical implications of being Turing Complete. What I'm actually trying to decide is if the toy language I've just designed could be used as a general-purpose language. I know I can prove it is if I can write a Turing machine with it. But I don't want to go through that exercise until I'm fairly certain of success. Is there a minimum set of features without which Turing Completeness is impossible? Is there a set of features which virtually guarantees completeness? (My guess is that conditional branching and a readable/writeable memory store will get me most of the way there) EDIT: I think I've gone off on a tangent by saying "Turing Complete". I'm trying to guess with reasonable confidence that a newly invented language with a certain feature set (or alternately, a VM with a certain instruction set) would be able to compute anything worth computing. I know proving you can building a Turing machine with it is one way, but not the only way. What I was hoping for was a set of guidelines like: "if it can do X,Y,and Z, it can probably do anything".

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441  | Next Page >