Search Results

Search found 22098 results on 884 pages for 'service oriented architec'.

Page 46/884 | < Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >

• Is OOP hard because it is not natural?

  - by zvrba

  One can often hear that OOP naturally corresponds to the way people think about the world. But I would strongly disagree with this statement: We (or at least I) conceptualize the world in terms of relationships between things we encounter, but the focus of OOP is designing individual classes and their hierarchies. Note that, in everyday life, relationships and actions exist mostly between objects that would have been instances of unrelated classes in OOP. Examples of such relationships are: "my screen is on top of the table"; "I (a human being) am sitting on a chair"; "a car is on the road"; "I am typing on the keyboard"; "the coffee machine boils water", "the text is shown in the terminal window." We think in terms of bivalent (sometimes trivalent, as, for example in, "I gave you flowers") verbs where the verb is the action (relation) that operates on two objects to produce some result/action. The focus is on action, and the two (or three) [grammatical] objects have equal importance. Contrast that with OOP where you first have to find one object (noun) and tell it to perform some action on another object. The way of thinking is shifted from actions/verbs operating on nouns to nouns operating on nouns -- it is as if everything is being said in passive or reflexive voice, e.g., "the text is being shown by the terminal window". Or maybe "the text draws itself on the terminal window". Not only is the focus shifted to nouns, but one of the nouns (let's call it grammatical subject) is given higher "importance" than the other (grammatical object). Thus one must decide whether one will say terminalWindow.show(someText) or someText.show(terminalWindow). But why burden people with such trivial decisions with no operational consequences when one really means show(terminalWindow, someText)? [Consequences are operationally insignificant -- in both cases the text is shown on the terminal window -- but can be very serious in the design of class hierarchies and a "wrong" choice can lead to convoluted and hard to maintain code.] I would therefore argue that the mainstream way of doing OOP (class-based, single-dispatch) is hard because it IS UNNATURAL and does not correspond to how humans think about the world. Generic methods from CLOS are closer to my way of thinking, but, alas, this is not widespread approach. Given these problems, how/why did it happen that the currently mainstream way of doing OOP became so popular? And what, if anything, can be done to dethrone it?

  Read the article

• Questioning one of the arguments 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 there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

  Read the article

• Handling array passed to object at creation

  - by cecilli0n

  When creating my object I pass it an array of a row from my database. (everything in the array we will need, disregarding unnecessary elements at sql query level) When I need to access certain array elements from within my class, I do so like $this->row['element'] However, As I continue development, I sometimes forget what exactly is in this passed array.(this itself doesn't seem good) I am wondering if their is a professional approach to dealing with this, Or am I the only one who has these "I wonder whats in the array" thoughts. One approach to tackling this could be that when we originally pass the array, in the constructor, we assign each element of the array to its own variable, but is this considered professional practice? Additionally by doing this, we could make those variables constants, in a attempt at immutability. Overall I am trying to adhere to good software craftsmanship. Regards.

  Read the article

• Rails: The Law of Demeter [duplicate]

  - by user2158382

  This question already has an answer here: Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion 4 answers I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Should library classes be wrapped before using them in unit testing?

  - by Songo

  I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Example: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Does that mean that I can never use a library class directly and must always wrap it in a class of my own? Example: interface Mailer{ public function setTo($to); public function setSubject($subject); public function setBody($body); public function send(); } class MyMailer implements Mailer{ private $mailer; function __construct(){ $this->mail=new Zend_Mail; //The class isn't injected this time } function setTo($to){ $this->mailer->setTo($to); } //implement the rest of the interface functions similarly } And now my Logger class can be happy :D class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Mailer $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } //rest of the code unchanged } Questions: Although I solved the mocking problem by introducing an interface, I have created a totally new class Mailer that now needs to be unit tested although it only wraps Zend_Mail which is already unit tested by the Zend team. Is there a better approach to all this? Zend_Mail's send() function could actually have a Zend_Transport object when called (i.e. public function send($transport = null)). Does this make the idea of a wrapper class more appealing? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

  Read the article

• To identify the classes for uml diagrams?

  - by user106535

  I want to implement a software engineering project based on "crime management system". The main modules are: visitors, users, administrator. The main events that are taking place are: registration, report complaint, report crime, report most wanted, view status of reported crime. So could you please help me to identify the classes that are to be used in this project and help me to draw the class diagram?

  Read the article

• Where should instantiated classes be stored?

  - by Eric C.

  I'm having a bit of a design dilemma here. I'm writing a library that consists of a bunch of template classes that are designed to be used as a base for creating content. For example: public class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } The problem is, not only is the library providing the templates, it will also supply quite a few predefined templates which are instances of these template classes. The question is, where do I put these instances of the templates? The three solutions I've come up with so far are: 1) Provide serialized instances of the templates as files. On the one hand, this solution would keep the instances separated from the library itself, which is nice, but it would also potentially add complexity for the user. Even if we provided methods for loading/deserializing the files, they'd still have to deal with a bunch of files, and some kind of config file so the app knows where to look for those files. Plus, creating the template files would probably require a separate app, so if the user wanted to stick with the files method of storing templates, we'd have to provide some kind of app for creating the template files. Also, this requires external dependencies for testing the templates in the user's code. 2) Add readonly instances to the template class Example: public class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template PredefinedTemplate { get { Template templateInstance = new Template(); templateInstance.Name = "Some Name"; templateInstance.Description = "A description"; ... return templateInstance; } } public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } This method would be convenient for users, as they would be able to access the predefined templates in code directly, and would be able to unit test code that used them. The drawback here is that the predefined templates pollute the Template type namespace with a bunch of extra stuff. I suppose I could put the predefined templates in a different namespace to get around this drawback. The only other problem with this approach is that I'd have to basically duplicate all the namespaces in the library in the predefined namespace (e.g. Templates.SubTemplates and Predefined.Templates.SubTemplates) which would be a pain, and would also make refactoring more difficult. 3) Make the templates abstract classes and make the predefined templates inherit from those classes. For example: public abstract class Template { public string Name {get; set;} public string Description {get; set;} public string Attribute1 {get; set;} public string Attribute2 {get; set;} public Template() { //constructor } public void DoSomething() { //does something } ... } and public class PredefinedTemplate : Template { public PredefinedTemplate() { this.Name = "Some Name"; this.Description = "A description"; this.Attribute1 = "Some Value"; ... } } This solution is pretty similar to #2, but it ends up creating a lot of classes that don't really do anything (none of our predefined templates are currently overriding behavior), and don't have any methods, so I'm not sure how good a practice this is. Has anyone else had any experience with something like this? Is there a best practice of some kind, or a different/better approach that I haven't thought of? I'm kind of banging my head against a wall trying to figure out the best way to go. Thanks!

  Read the article

• overriding implemented base class methods

  - by user793468

  I read somewhere that the chain of inheritance breaks when you alter a behavior from derived class. What does "altering a behavior" mean here? Is overriding an already implemented method in base class considered as "altering behavior"? Or, does the author mean altering method signatures and the output? Also, I ready Duplicating code is not a good practice, and its a maintenance nightmare. Again, does overriding an already implemented method in base class considered "Duplicating code"? If not, what would be considered as "Duplicating code"? I

  Read the article

• Does FP mess up your OOP skills?

  - by bonomo

  I've been learning functional programming in Haskell and F# for awhile and now when I got some skills it gets harder for me to think in OOP way and program in C# and JavaScript. Everything seems to be ass-backwards there with classes, interfaces, objects and I often stare at the screen trying to think of a better way around without using them. This is something that scares me, because I didn't have problems like that before (not knowing that the same stuff can be done in a different way). So I am concerned as I don't want to loose myself as a OOP developer, because this is what I do for living. Is it a normal thing? Shall I rather stop doing FP? How did you manage to cope with it?

  Read the article

• Why setter method when getter method enough in PHP OOP

  - by phphunger

  I am practicing OOP with PHP, and I am struck at setter and getter methods. I can directly access the class properties and methods with getter method then what's the use of setter method? See my example. <?php class MyClass{ public $classVar = "Its a class variable"; public function Getter(){ return $this -> classVar; } } $obj = new MyClass; echo $obj -> Getter(); ?>

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Am i following right way?

  - by sineverba

  I'm learning OOP (PHP). I've realized my own CRUD Class, that performs some kind of queries SQL. Btw, a Gasoline asked us to realize a smart, simple web-app where he can update prices of his gasoline (gasoline, diesel, lpg) and via an API i could recall them and display in his site. So, I did create a new Class Gasoline but it perform some methods of CRUD Class public function getPrezzoBenzina($id) { $prezzo_benzina = $this->distributore->sql('SELECT prezzo_benzina FROM prezzi WHERE id = '.$id); return $prezzo_benzina } And so on (code is pseudocode, just to explain). I could perform all my code only with help of Crud Class... without necessity of Class Gasoline. So, what I'm missing about OOP? Where am I wrong?

  Read the article

• Class design issue

  - by user2865206

  I'm new to OOP and a lot of times I become stumped in situations similar to this example: Task: Generate an XML document that contains information about a person. Assume the information is readily available in a database. Here is an example of the structure: <Person> <Name>John Doe</Name> <Age>21</Age> <Address> <Street>100 Main St.</Street> <City>Sylvania</City> <State>OH</State> </Address> <Relatives> <Parents> <Mother> <Name>Jane Doe</Name> </Mother> <Father> <Name>John Doe Sr.</Name> </Father> </Parents> <Siblings> <Brother> <Name>Jeff Doe</Name> </Brother> <Brother> <Name>Steven Doe</Name> </Brother> </Siblings> </Relatives> </Person> Ok lets create a class for each tag (ie: Person, Name, Age, Address) Lets assume each class is only responsible for itself and the elements directly contained Each class will know (have defined by default) the classes that are directly contained within them Each class will have a process() function that will add itself and its childeren to the XML document we are creating When a child is drawn, as in the previous line, we will have them call process() as well Now we are in a recursive loop where each object draws their childeren until all are drawn But what if only some of the tags need to be drawn, and the rest are optional? Some are optional based on if the data exists (if we have it, we must draw it), and some are optional based on the preferences of the user generating the document How do we make sure each object has the data it needs to draw itself and it's childeren? We can pass down a massive array through every object, but that seems shitty doesnt it? We could have each object query the database for it, but thats a lot of queries, and how does it know what it's query is? What if we want to get rid of a tag later? There is no way to reference them. I've been thinking about this for 20 hours now. I feel like I am misunderstanding a design principle or am just approaching this all wrong. How would you go about programming something like this? I suppose this problem could apply to any senario where there are classes that create other classes, but the classes created need information to run. How do I get the information to them in a way that doesn't seem fucky? Thanks for all of your time, this has been kicking my ass.

  Read the article

• Looking for a better Factory pattern (Java)

  - by Sam Goldberg

  After doing a rough sketch of a high level object model, I am doing iterative TDD, and letting the other objects emerge as a refactoring of the code (as it increases in complexity). (That whole approach may be a discussion/argument for another day.) In any case, I am at the point where I am looking to refactor code blocks currently in an if-else blocks into separate objects. This is because there is another another value combination which creates new set of logical sub-branches. To be more specific, this is a trading system feature, where buy orders have different behavior than sell orders. Responses to the orders have a numeric indicator field which describes some event that occurred (e.g. fill, cancel). The combination of this numeric indicator field plus whether it is a buy or sell, require different processing buy the code. Creating a family of objects to separate the code for the unique handling each of the combinations of the 2 fields seems like a good choice at this point. The way I would normally do this, is to create some Factory object which when called with the 2 relevant parameters (indicator, buysell), would return the correct subclass of the object. Some times I do this pattern with a map, which allows to look up a live instance (or constructor to use via reflection), and sometimes I just hard code the cases in the Factory class. So - for some reason this feels like not good design (e.g. one object which knows all the subclasses of an interface or parent object), and a bit clumsy. Is there a better pattern for solving this kind of problem? And if this factory method approach makes sense, can anyone suggest a nicer design?

  Read the article

• correct way to implement auth/acl in mvc

  - by WiseStrawberry

  I am looking into making a correctly laid out MVC auth/acl system. I think I want the authentication of a user (and the session handling) to be seperate from the ACL system. (I don't know why but this seems a good idea from the things I've read) What does mvc have to do with this question you ask? Because I wish for the application to be well integrated with my acl. An example of a controller (CodeIgniter) <?php class forums extends MX_Controller { $allowed = array('users', 'admin'); $need_login = true; function __construct() { //example of checking if logged in. if($this->auth->logged_in() && $this->auth->is_admin()) { echo "you're logged in!"; } } public function add_topic() { if($this->auth->allowed('add_topic') { //some add topic things. } else { echo 'not allowed to add topic'; } } } ?> My thoughts $this->auth would be autoloaded in the system. I would like to check the $allowed array against the user currently (not) logged in and react accordingly. Is this a good way of doing things? I haven't seen much literature on mvc integration and auth. I want to make things as easy as possible.

  Read the article

• Models, collections...and then what? Processes?

  - by Dan

  I'm a LAMP-stack dev who's been more on the JavaScript side the last few years and really enjoying the Model + Collection approach to data entities that BackboneJS, etc. uses. It's helped me organize my code in such a way that it is extremely portable, keeping all my properties and methods in the scope (model, collection, etc.) in which they apply. One thing that keeps bugging me though is how to organize the next level up, the 'process layer' as you might call it, that can potentially operate on instances of either models or collections or whatever else. Where should methods like find() (which returns a collection) and create() (which returns a model) reside? I know some people would put a create() in the Collection prototype, but while a collection operates on models I don't think it's exactly right to create them. And while a find() would return a collection I don't think it correct to have that action within the collection prototype itself (it should be a layer up). Can anyone offer some examples of any patterns that employ some kind of OOP-friendly 'process' layer? I'm sorry if this is a fairly well-known discussion but I'm afraid I can't seem to find the terminology to search for.

  Read the article

• In PHP, what are the different design patterns to implement OO controllers as opposed to procedural controllers?

  - by Ryan

  For example, it's very straightforward to have an index.php controller be a procedural script like so: <?php //include classes and functions //get some data from the database //and/or process a form submission //render HTML using your template system ?> Then I can just navigate to http://mysite.com/index.php and the above procedural script is essentially acting as a simple controller. Here the controller mechanism is a basic procedural script. How then do you make controllers classes instead of procedural scripts? Must the controller class always be tied to the routing mechanism?

  Read the article

• Class Versus Struct

  - by Prometheus87

  In C++ and other influenced languages there is a construct called Structure (struct) and we all know the class. Both are capable of holding functions and variables. some differences are 1. Class is given memory in heap and struct is given memory in stack 2. in class variable are private by default and in struct thy are public My question is that struct was somehow abandoned for Class. Why? other that abstraction, a struct can do all the same stuff a class does. Then why abandon it?

  Read the article

• is 'protected' ever reasonable outside of virtual methods and destructors?

  - by notallama

  so, suppose you have some fields and methods marked protected (non-virtual). presumably, you did this because you didn't mark them public because you don't want some nincompoop to accidentally call them in the wrong order or pass in invalid parameters, or you don't want people to rely on behaviour that you're going to change later. so, why is it okay for that nincompoop to use those fields and methods from a subclass? as far as i can tell, they can still screw up in the same ways, and the same compatibility issues still exist if you change the implementation. the cases for protected i can think of are: non-virtual destructors, so you can't break things by deleting the base class. virtual methods, so you can override 'private' methods called by the base class. constructors in c++. in java/c# marking the class as abstract will do basically the same. any other use cases?

  Read the article

• How to store a list of Objects that might change in future?

  - by Amogh Talpallikar

  I have set of Objects of the same class which have different values of their attributes. and I need to find the best match from a function under given scenarios out of these objects. In future these objects might increase as well. Quite similar to the way we have Color class in awt. we have some static color objects in the class with diff rgb values. But in my case say, I need to chose the suitable color out of these static ones based on certain criteria. So should I keep them in an arrayList or enum or keep them as static vars as in case of Colors. because I will need to parse through all of them and decide upon the best match. so I need them in some sort of collection. But in future if I need to add another type I will have to modify the class and add another list.add(object) call for this one and then it will violate the open-close principle. How should I go about it ?

  Read the article

• Semantic coupling vs. large class

  - by user106587

  I have hardware I communicate with via TCP. This hardware accepts ~40 different commands/requests with about 20 different responses. I've created a HardwareProxy class which has a TcpClient to send and receive data. I didn't like the idea of having 40 different methods to send the commands/requests, so I started down the path of having a single SendCommand method which takes an ICommand and returns an IResponse, this results in 40 different SpecificCommand classes. The problem is this requires semantic coupling, i.e. the method that invokes SendCommand receives an IResponse which it has to downcast to SpecificResponse, I use a future map which I believe ensures the appropriate SpecificResponse, but I get the impression this code smells. Besides the semantic coupling, ICommand and IResponse are essentially empty abstract classes (Marker Interfaces) and this seems suspicious to me. If I go with the 40 methods I don't think I have broken the single responisbility principle as the responsibility of the HardwareProxy class is to act as the hardware, which has all of these commands. This route is just ugly, plus I'd like to have Asynchronous versions, so there'd be about 80 methods. Is it better to bite the bullet and have a large class, accept the coupling and MarkerInterfaces for a smaller soultuion, or am I missing a better way? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Using visitor pattern with large object hierarchy

  - by T. Fabre

  Context I've been using with a hierarchy of objects (an expression tree) a "pseudo" visitor pattern (pseudo, as in it does not use double dispatch) : public interface MyInterface { void Accept(SomeClass operationClass); } public class MyImpl : MyInterface { public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } } This design was, however questionnable, pretty comfortable since the number of implementations of MyInterface is significant (~50 or more) and I didn't need to add extra operations. Each implementation is unique (it's a different expression or operator), and some are composites (ie, operator nodes that will contain other operator/leaf nodes). Traversal is currently performed by calling the Accept operation on the root node of the tree, which in turns calls Accept on each of its child nodes, which in turn... and so on... But the time has come where I need to add a new operation, such as pretty printing : public class MyImpl : MyInterface { // Property does not come from MyInterface public string SomeProperty { get; set; } public void Accept(SomeClass operationClass) { operationClass.DoSomething(); operationClass.DoSomethingElse(); // ... and so on ... } public void Accept(SomePrettyPrinter printer) { printer.PrettyPrint(this.SomeProperty); } } I basically see two options : Keep the same design, adding a new method for my operation to each derived class, at the expense of maintainibility (not an option, IMHO) Use the "true" Visitor pattern, at the expense of extensibility (not an option, as I expect to have more implementations coming along the way...), with about 50+ overloads of the Visit method, each one matching a specific implementation ? Question Would you recommand using the Visitor pattern ? Is there any other pattern that could help solve this issue ?

  Read the article

• "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

  - by Simon

  Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

  Read the article

• Is there a way to avoid type-checking in this scenario?

  - by Prog

  I have a class SuperClass with two subclasses SubClassA and SubClassB. I have a method in a different class which takes a SuperClass parameter. The method should do different things depending on the type of the object it receives. To illustrate: public void doStuff(SuperClass object){ // if the object is of type SubClassA, do something. // if it's of type SubClassB, do something else. } I want to avoid type-checking (i.e. instanceof) because it doesn't feel like proper OO design. But I can't figure out how to employ Polymorphism to elegantly solve this problem. How can I solve this problem elegantly?

  Read the article

• Class design for calling "the same method" on different classes from one place

  - by betatester07

  Let me introduce my situation: I have Java EE application and in one package, I want to have classes which will act primarily as cache for some data from database, for example: class that will hold all articles for our website class that will hold all categories etc. Every class should have some update() method, which will update data for that class from database and also some other methods for data manipulation specific for that data type. Now, I would like to call update() method for all class instances (there will be exactly one class instance for every class) from one place. What is the best design?

  Read the article

• Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

  - by rogcg

  I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53  | Next Page >