Search Results

Search found 5044 results on 202 pages for 'logic'.

Page 5/202 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • When does logic belong in the Business Object/Entity, and when does it belong in a Service?

    - by Casey
    In trying to understand Domain Driven Design I keep returning to a question that I can't seem to definitively answer. How do you determine what logic belongs to a Domain entity, and what logic belongs to a Domain Service? Example: We have an Order class for an online store. This class is an entity and an aggregate root (it contains OrderItems). Public Class Order:IOrder { Private List<IOrderItem> OrderItems Public Order(List<IOrderItem>) { OrderItems = List<IOrderItem> } Public Decimal CalculateTotalItemWeight() //This logic seems to belong in the entity. { Decimal TotalWeight = 0 foreach(IOrderItem OrderItem in OrderItems) { TotalWeight += OrderItem.Weight } return TotalWeight } } I think most people would agree that CalculateTotalItemWeight belongs on the entity. However, at some point we have to ship this order to the customer. To accomplish this we need to do two things: 1) Determine the postage rate necessary to ship this order. 2) Print a shipping label after determining the postage rate. Both of these actions will require dependencies that are outside the Order entity, such as an external webservice to retrieve postage rates. How should we accomplish these two things? I see a few options: 1) Code the logic directly in the domain entity, like CalculateTotalItemWeight. We then call: Order.GetPostageRate Order.PrintLabel 2) Put the logic in a service that accepts IOrder. We then call: PostageService.GetPostageRate(Order) PrintService.PrintLabel(Order) 3) Create a class for each action that operates on an Order, and pass an instance of that class to the Order through Constructor Injection (this is a variation of option 1 but allows reuse of the RateRetriever and LabelPrinter classes): Public Class Order:IOrder { Private List<IOrderItem> OrderItems Private RateRetriever _Retriever Private LabelPrinter _Printer Public Order(List<IOrderItem>, RateRetriever Retriever, LabelPrinter Printer) { OrderItems = List<IOrderItem> _Retriever = Retriever _Printer = Printer } Public Decimal GetPostageRate { _Retriever.GetPostageRate(this) } Public void PrintLabel { _Printer.PrintLabel(this) } } Which one of these methods do you choose for this logic, if any? What is the reasoning behind your choice? Most importantly, is there a set of guidelines that led you to your choice?

    Read the article

  • Term for unit testing that separates test logic from test result data

    - by mario
    So I'm not doing any unit testing. But I've had an idea to make it more appropriate for my field of use. Yet it's not clear if something like this exists, and if, how it would possibly be called. Ordinary unit tests combine the test logic and the expected outcome. In essence the testing framework only checks for booleans (did this match, did the expected result result). To generalize, the test code itself references the audited functions, and also explicites the result values like so: unit::assert( test_me() == 17 ) What I'm looking for is a separation of concerns. The test itself should only contain the tested logic. The outcome and result data should be handled by the unit testing or assertion framework. As example: unit::probe( test_me() ) Here the probe actually doubles as collector in the first run, and afterwards as verification method. The expected 17 is not mentioned in the test code, but stored or managed elsewhere. How is this scheme called? Or how would you call it? I hope I can find some actual implementations with the proper terminology. Obviously such a pattern is unfit for TDD. It's strictly for regression testing. Also obviously, it cannot be used for all cases. Only the simpler test subjects can be analyzed that way, for anything else the ordinary unit test setup and assertion steps are required. And yes, this could be manually accomplished by crafting a ResultWhateverObject, but that would still require hardwiring that to the test logic. Also keep in mind that I'm inquiring for use with scripting languages, and not about Java. I'm aware that the xUnit pattern originates there, and why it's hence as elaborate as it is. Btw, I've discovered one test execution framework which allows for shortening simple test notations to: test_me(); // 17 While thus the result data is no longer coded in (it's a comment), that's still not a complete separation and of course would work only for scalar results.

    Read the article

  • Moving all UI logic to Client Side?

    - by Mag20
    Our team originally consisted of mostly server side developers with minimum expertise in Javascript. In ASP.NET we used to write a lot of UI logic in code-behind or more recently through controllers in MVC. A little while ago 2 high level client side developers joined our team. They can do in HTMl/CSS/Javascript pretty much anything that we could previously do with server-side code and server-side web controls: Show/hide controls Do validation Control AJAX refreshing So I started to think that maybe it would be more efficient to just create a high level API around our business logic, kinda like Amazon Fulfillment API: http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/fws/latest/APIReference/, so that client side developers would fully take over the UI, while server side developers would only concentrate on business logic. So for ordering system you would have a high level API like: OrderService.asmx CreateOrderResponse CreateOrder(CreateOrderRequest) AddOrderItem AddPayment - SubmitPayment - GetOrderByID FindOrdersByCriteria ... There would be JSON/REST access to API, so it would be easy to consume from client-side UI. We could use this API for both internal UI development and also for 3-rd parties to create their own applications. With advances in Javascript and availability of good client side developers, is it a good time to get rid of code-behind/controllers and just concentrate on developing high level APIs (ala Amazon) that client side developers can consume?

    Read the article

  • Help me with this logic (newbie) [migrated]

    - by Surendra
    I need to generate a half pyramid number series with the entered starting number and the number of lines in a html page using Javascript and show the result in html page . I have done the Java scripting and stuff . What I don't get is the logic to it. Take a look at this you may get an idea what I'm talking about: Here is my function in Javascript that will be triggered on a button click function doFunction(){ var enteredNumber=document.getElementById("start"); var lines=document.getElementById("lines"); var result; for(i=0;i<=lines.value;i++) { for(j=enteredNumber.value;j<=i;j++) { document.write(j + "&nbsp;" + "&nbsp;"); } document.write("<br />"); } } Help me with the logic to print following order: 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 There is a condition. I will specify $start and $lines. If $start = 5 and $lines = 3 then output should be like: 5 5 6 5 6 7 I have had used the for loop , but that doesn't work if I give my own start number that is higher than the number of lines. I actually need it done with Javascript, I have had done the necessary but I'm confused with the logic to generate such series (with the user given values) I had actually used two for loops to generate the regular number series like below 1 1 2 1 2 3 and so on.

    Read the article

  • RESTful applications logic and cross resource operations

    - by Gaz_Edge
    I have an RESTful api that allows my users to receive enquiries about their business e.g. 'I would like to book service x on date y. Is this available?'. The api saves this information as a resource to the following URI users/{userId}/enquiries/{enquiryId} The information shown when this resource is retrieved are the standard sort of things you'd expect from an enquiry - email, first_name, last_name, address, message The api also allows customers to be created for a user. The customer has a login and password and also a profile. The following URIs expose these two resources PUT users/{userId}/customers/{customerId} PUT users/{userId}/customers/{customerId}/profile The problem I am having is that I would like to have the ability to allow users to create a customer from an enquiry. For example, the user is able to offer their service on the date requested and will then want to setup a customer with login details etc to allow them to manage the rest of the process. The obvious answer would be to use a URI like users/{userId}/enquiries/{enquiryId}/convert-to-client The problem with this is is that it somewhat goes against a lot of what I've been reading about how to implement REST (specifically from the book Restful Web Services which suggests that URIs should point to resources not operations on resources). The other option would be to get the client application (i.e. the code that calls the api) to handle some of this application logic. This doesn't quite feel right to me. I have implemented in my design that the client app is fairly dumb. It knows just enough to display the results from the API, and does not contain any application logic. Would be great to hear what others views are on the best way of setting this up Am I wrong to have no application logic in the client app? How would I perform this operation purely in the REST api?

    Read the article

  • Handling game logic events by behavior components

    - by chehob
    My question continues on topic discussed here I have tried implementing attribute/behavior design and here is a quick example demonstrating the issue. class HealthAttribute : public ActorAttribute { public: HealthAttribute( float val ) : mValue( val ) { } float Get( void ) const { return mValue; } void Set( float val ) { mValue = val; } private: float mValue; }; class HealthBehavior : public ActorBehavior { public: HealthBehavior( shared_ptr< HealthAttribute > health ) : pHealth( health ) { // Set OnDamage() to listen for game logic event "DamageEvent" } void OnDamage( IEventDataPtr pEventData ) { // Check DamageEvent target entity // ( compare my entity ID with event's target entity ID ) // If not my entity, do nothing // Else, modify health attribute with received DamageEvent data } protected: shared_ptr< HealthAttribute > pHealth; }; My question - is it possible to get rid of this annoying check for game logic events? In the current implementation when some entity must receive damage, game logic just fires off event that contains damage value and the entity id which should receive that damage. And all HealthBehaviors are subscribed to the DamageEvent type, which leads to any entity possesing HealthBehavior call OnDamage() even if he is not the addressee.

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to deal with similar but independent features?

    - by Koviko
    Let's say we have a feature request come in and we begin work on it, which we'll call feature-1. It introduces some new logic to the application, which we'll call logic-A and logic-B. A programmer branches from the release branch and begins work on the feature. Soon after, we get another feature request, which we'll call feature-2. It will implement logic-A and logic-C into the application. The logic A being implemented by this feature is the same logic-A as was implemented in feature-1. Let's also say that given logic-B, logic-A might be implemented slightly differently than it would have been given logic-C, and also differently given both logic-B and logic-C (eg. with only one feature, the code would be less flexible than with both). How should this situation be handled? Concrete Example (to help with any confusion in my wording) feature-1 is a feed from programmers.stackexchange.com. feature-2 is a feed from gaming.stackexchange.com. logic-A is the implementation of a feed at all (assuming the application currently has no feeds), which links to the content as well and gives related information. logic-B is that the feed's source is from programmers.stackexchange.com. Adds to logic-A that the related programming language is displayed. logic-C is that the feed's source is from gaming.stackexchange.com. Adds to logic-A that the related game's name and box art is displayed.

    Read the article

  • What is up with the Joy of Clojure 2nd edition?

    - by kurofune
    Manning just released the second edition of the beloved Joy of Clojure book, and while I share that love I get the feeling that many of the examples are already outdated. In particular, in the chapter on optimization the recommended type-hinting seems not to be allowed by the compiler. I don't know if this was allowable for older versions of Clojure. For example: (defn factorial-f [^long original-x] (loop [x original-x, acc 1] (if (>= 1 x) acc (recur (dec x) (*' x acc))))) returns: clojure.lang.Compiler$CompilerException: java.lang.UnsupportedOperationException: Can't type hint a primitive local, compiling:(null:3:1) Likewise, the chapter on core.logic seems be using an old API and I have to find workarounds for each example to accommodate the recent changes. For example, I had to turn this: (logic/defrel orbits orbital body) (logic/fact orbits :mercury :sun) (logic/fact orbits :venus :sun) (logic/fact orbits :earth :sun) (logic/fact orbits :mars :sun) (logic/fact orbits :jupiter :sun) (logic/fact orbits :saturn :sun) (logic/fact orbits :uranus :sun) (logic/fact orbits :neptune :sun) (logic/run* [q] (logic/fresh [orbital body] (orbits orbital body) (logic/== q orbital))) into this, leveraging the pldb lib: (pldb/db-rel orbits orbital body) (def facts (pldb/db [orbits :mercury :sun] [orbits :venus :sun] [orbits :earth :sun] [orbits :mars :sun] [orbits :jupiter :sun] [orbits :saturn :sun] [orbits :uranus :sun] [orbits :neptune :sun])) (pldb/with-db facts (logic/run* [q] (logic/fresh [orbital body] (orbits orbital body) (logic/== q orbital)))) I am still pulling teeth to get the later examples to work. I am relatively new programming, myself, so I wonder if I am naively looking over something here, or are if these points I'm making legitimate concerns? I really want to get good at this stuff like type-hinting and core.logic, but wanna make sure I am studying up to date materials. Any illuminating facts to help clear up my confusion would be most welcome.

    Read the article

  • how to write good programming logic?

    - by user106616
    recently I got job as a java developer, and now I have assigned project too. I want to know what is a good logic? when I check in the code my team lead is saying that its a good code. But when it comes to my project manager he is saying that its a bad code. And he is changing my code, after his changes if I see his code its really very very good and even simple. can you please tell me how to develop the good program, good logic? what is the best way to structure a problem in terms of code?

    Read the article

  • Are There Realistic/Useful Solutions for Source Control for Ladder Logic Programs

    - by Steven A. Lowe
    Version control for ladder logic (LL) programs for programmable logic controllers (PLCs) seems to be virtually non-existent. It may be because LL is a visual language and tends to be stored in binary files, or it may be because source code control hasn't "caught on" in process control engineering circles - or perhaps my Google-Fu is weak tonight. Do you know of any realistic and useful solutions for version control for such systems? Definitions: realistic = changes to the programs are tracked by user and subject to reversion and merges useful = the system integrates with visual LL designers, is not limited to LL from a single PLC manufacturer, and does not cost a ridiculous amount of money? Note: I have heard of people using SVN or Mercurial et al to track the binary files, but I don't think the diff/merge capabilities would display readable differences.

    Read the article

  • Which game logic should run when doing prediction for PNP state updates

    - by spaceOwl
    We are writing a multiplayer game, where each game client (player) is responsible for sending state updates regarding its "owned" objects to other players. Each message that arrives to other (remote) clients is processed as such: Figure out when the message was sent. Create a diff between NOW and that time. Run game specific logic to bring the received state to "current" time. I am wondering which sort of logic should execute as part of step #3 ? Our game is composed of a physical update (position, speed, acceleration, etc) and many other components that can update an object's state and occur regularly (locally). There's a trade off here - Getting the new state quickly or remaining "faithful" to the true state representation and executing the whole thing to predict the "true" state when receiving state updates from remote clients. Which one is recommended to be used? and why?

    Read the article

  • Splitting Logic, Data, Layout and "Hacks"

    - by fjdumont
    Sure, we all heard of programming patterns such as MVVM, MVC and such. But that isn't really what I'm looking into as Layout, Data and Logic is already pretty much split up (XML-Layout markup, Database, insert your language of choice here). The platform I am developing for is hard to maintain over the updated versions and older OSes. The project significantly grew up over the last few months and dealing with different platform versions really is a pain. For example simply disabling an user interface control for all existing versions took me around 40 lines of code in the logic layer, wrangling around with invocation, delegation, singletons that provide UI handling and so on. Is there a clean way to keep track of those "hacks" by maybe excluding it into separate classes or even packages? Should I overwrite existing framework code in order to handle my requirements correctly? If so, does that concept have a name?

    Read the article

  • How should I design a correct OO design in case of a Business-logic wide operation

    - by Mithir
    EDIT: Maybe I should ask the question in a different way. in light of ammoQ's comment, I realize that I've done something like suggested which is kind of a fix and it is fine by me. But I still want to learn for the future, so that if I develop new code for operations similar to this, I can design it correctly from the start. So, if I got the following characteristics: The relevant input is composed from data which is connected to several different business objects All the input data is validated and cross-checked Attempts are made in order to insert the data to the DB All this is just a single operation from Business side prospective, meaning all of the cross checking and validations are just side effects. I can't think of any other way but some sort of Operator/Coordinator kind of Object which activates the entire procedure, but then I fall into a Functional-Decomposition kind of code. so is there a better way in doing this? Original Question In our system we have many complex operations which involve many validations and DB activities. One of the main Business functionality could have been designed better. In short, there were no separation of layers, and the code would only work from the scenario in which it was first designed at, and now there were more scenarios (like requests from an API or from other devices) So I had to redesign. I found myself moving all the DB code to objects which acts like Business to DB objects, and I've put all the business logic in an Operator kind of a class, which I've implemented like this: First, I created an object which will hold all the information needed for the operation let's call it InformationObject. Then I created an OperatorObject which will take the InformationObject as a parameter and act on it. The OperatorObject should activate different objects and validate or check for existence or any scenario in which the business logic is compromised and then make the operation according to the information on the InformationObject. So my question is - Is this kind of implementation correct? PS, this Operator only works on a single Business-wise Operation.

    Read the article

  • looking for a short explanation of fuzzy logic

    - by user613326
    Well i got the idea that basics of fuzzy logic are not that hard to grasp. And i got the feeling that someone might explain it to me in like 30 minutes. Just like i understand neural networks and am able to re-create the famous Xor problem. And go just beyond it and create 3 layer networks of x nodes. I'd like to understand fuzzy till a similar usefully level, in c# language. However the problem is face, I'd like to get concept right however i see many websites who include lots of errors in their basic explaining. Like for example showing pictures and use different numbers as shown in pictures to calculate, as if lots of people just copied stuff without noticing what they write down. While others for me go to deep in their math notation) To me that's very annoying to learn from. For me there is no need to re-invent wheel; Aforge already got a fuzzy logic framework. So what i am looking for are some good examples, good examples like how the neural XOR problem is solved. Is there anyone such a instructional resource out there; do you know a web page, or YouTube where it is shortly explained, what would you recommend me ? Note this article comes close; but it just doesnt nail it for me. After that i downloaded a bunch of free PDF's but most are academic and hard to read for me (i'm not English and dont have a special math degree). (i've been looking around a lot for this, good starter material about it is hard to find).

    Read the article

  • Documenting mathematical logic in code

    - by Kiril Raychev
    Sometimes, although not often, I have to include math logic in my code. The concepts used are mostly very simple, but the resulting code is not - a lot of variables with unclear purpose, and some operations with not so obvious intent. I don't mean that the code is unreadable or unmaintainable, just that it's waaaay harder to understand than the actual math problem. I try to comment the parts which are hardest to understand, but there is the same problem as in just coding them - text does not have the expressive power of math. I am looking for a more efficient and easy to understand way of explaining the logic behind some of the complex code, preferably in the code itself. I have considered TeX - writing the documentation and generating it separately from the code. But then I'd have to learn TeX, and the documentation will not be in the code itself. Another thing I thought of is taking a picture of the mathematical notations, equations and diagrams written on paper/whiteboard, and including it in javadoc. Is there a simpler and clearer way? P.S. Giving descriptive names(timeOfFirstEvent instead of t1) to the variables actually makes the code more verbose and even harder too read.

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elsewhere

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Making game constants/tables available to game logic classes/routines in a modular manner

    - by Extrakun
    Suppose I have a game where there are several predefined constants and charts (a XP chart, cost of goods and so on). Those could be defined at runtime, or load from files at start-up. The question is how should those logic routines access the constants and charts? For example, I could try using global variables, but that cause all classes relying on the variables to be tightly coupled with them.

    Read the article

  • Reuse Business Logic between Web and API

    - by fesja
    We have a website and two mobile apps that connect through an API. All the platforms do the exactly same things. Right now the structure is the following: Website. It manages models, controllers, views for the website. It also executes all background tasks. So if a user create a place, everything is executed in this code. API. It manages models, controllers and return a JSON. If a user creates a place on the mobile app, the place is created here. After, we add a background task to update other fields. This background task is executed by the Website. We are redoing everything, so it's time to improve the approach. Which is the best way to reuse the business logic so I only need to code the insert/edit/delete of the place & other actions related in just one place? Is a service oriented approach a good idea? For example: Service. It has the models and gets, adds, updates and deletes info from the DB. Website. It send the info to the service, and it renders HTML. API. It sends info to the service, and it returns JSON. Some problems I have found: More initial work? Not sure.. It can work slower. Any experience? The benefits: We only have the business logic in one place, both for web and api. It's easier to scale. We can put each piece on different servers. Other solutions Duplicate the code and be careful not to forget anything (do tests!) DUplicate some code but execute background tasks that updates the related fields and executes other things (emails, indexing...) A "small" detail is we are 1.3 person in backend, for now ;)

    Read the article

  • Music Notation Editor - Refactoring view creation logic elseware

    - by Cyril Silverman
    Let me preface by saying that knowing some elementary music theory and music notation may be helpful in grasping the problem at hand. I'm currently building a Music Notation and Tablature Editor (in Javascript). But I've come to a point where the core parts of the program are more or less there. All functionality I plan to add at this point will really build off the foundation that I've created. As a result, I want to refactor to really solidify my code. I'm using an API called VexFlow to render notation. Basically I pass the parts of the editor's state to VexFlow to build the graphical representation of the score. Here is a rough and stripped down UML diagram showing you the outline of my program: In essence, a Part has many Measures which has many Notes which has many NoteItems (yes, this is semantically weird, as a chord is represented as a Note with multiple NoteItems, individual pitches or fret positions). All of the relationships are bi-directional. There are a few problems with my design because my Measure class contains the majority of the entire application view logic. The class holds the data about all VexFlow objects (the graphical representation of the score). It contains the graphical Staff object and the graphical notes. (Shouldn't these be placed somewhere else in the program?) While VexFlowFactory deals with actual creation (and some processing) of most of the VexFlow objects, Measure still "directs" the creation of all the objects and what order they are supposed to be created in for both the VexFlowStaff and VexFlowNotes. I'm not looking for a specific answer as you'd need a much deeper understanding of my code. Just a general direction to go in. Here's a thought I had, create an MeasureView/NoteView/PartView classes that contains the basic VexFlow objects for each class in addition to any extraneous logic for it's creation? but where would these views be contained? Do I create a ScoreView that is a parallel graphical representation of everything? So that ScoreView.render() would cascade down PartView and call render for each PartView and casade down into each MeasureView, etc. Again, I just have no idea what direction to go in. The more I think about it, the more ways to go seem to pop into my head. I tried to be as concise and simplistic as possible while still getting my problem across. Please feel free to ask me any questions if anything is unclear. It's quite a struggle trying to dumb down a complicated problem to its core parts.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Foreach Looping Logic in SSIS

    With SSIS, it is possible to implement looping logic into SSIS's control flow in order to define a repeating workflow in a package for each member of a collection of objects. Rob Sheldon explains how to use this valuable feature of SSIS. Get smart with SQL Backup ProGet faster, smaller backups with integrated verification.Quickly and easily DBCC CHECKDB your backups. Learn more.

    Read the article

  • ADO.NET Data Services business logic processing

    a simple approach that provides business logic processing before forwarding data to the clients with ADO.NET Data Services.  read moreBy Siyamand AyubiDid you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >