Search Results

Search found 3642 results on 146 pages for 'architectural patterns'.

Page 57/146 | < Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >

  • Grasp Controller, Does it really need a UI to exist?

    - by dbones
    I have a Domain model which can be in multiple states, and if these states go out of a given range it the domain should automatically react. For example I have a Car which is made of multiple things which have measurements the Engine - Rev counter and Temperature the Fuel Tank - capacity Is is plaseable to have a CarStateController, which observses the engine and the tank, and if these states go out of range IE the engine temperature goes above range, turn the engine fan on?? There is no UI, (you could argue it would show a light on the dash board, but for this case it does not) is this a valid use of a GRASP controller pattern? if not what is this CarStateController Called? Or have I completely missed the point and this should be the State Pattern?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • c++ Design pattern for CoW, inherited classes, and variable shared data?

    - by krunk
    I've designed a copy-on-write base class. The class holds the default set of data needed by all children in a shared data model/CoW model. The derived classes also have data that only pertains to them, but should be CoW between other instances of that derived class. I'm looking for a clean way to implement this. If I had a base class FooInterface with shared data FooDataPrivate and a derived object FooDerived. I could create a FooDerivedDataPrivate. The underlying data structure would not effect the exposed getters/setters API, so it's not about how a user interfaces with the objects. I'm just wondering if this is a typical MO for such cases or if there's a better/cleaner way? What peeks my interest, is I see the potential of inheritance between the the private data classes. E.g. FooDerivedDataPrivate : public FooDataPrivate, but I'm not seeing a way to take advantage of that polymorphism in my derived classes. class FooDataPrivate { public: Ref ref; // atomic reference counting object int a; int b; int c; }; class FooInterface { public: // constructors and such // .... // methods are implemented to be copy on write. void setA(int val); void setB(int val); void setC(int val); // copy constructors, destructors, etc. all CoW friendly private: FooDataPrivate *data; }; class FooDerived : public FooInterface { public: FooDerived() : FooInterface() {} private: // need more shared data for FooDerived // this is the ???, how is this best done cleanly? };

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • Conditional column values in NSTableView?

    - by velocityb0y
    I have an NSTableView that binds via an NSArrayController to an NSMutableArray. What's in the array are derived classes; the first few columns of the table are bound to properties that exist on the base class. That all works fine. Where I'm running into problem is a column that should only be populated if the row maps to one specific subclass. The property that column is meant to display only exists in that subclass, since it makes no sense in terms of the base class. The user will know, from the first two columns, why the third column's cell is populated/editable or not. The binding on the third column's value is on arrangedObjects, with a model path of something like "foo.name" where foo is the property on the subclass. However, this doesn't work, as the other subclasses in the hierarchy are not key-value compliant for foo. It seems like my only choice is to have foo be a property on the base class so everybody responds to it, but this clutters up the interfaces of the model objects. Has anyone come up with a clean design for this situation? It can't be uncommon (I'm a relative newcomer to Cocoa and I'm just learning the ins and outs of bindings.)

    Read the article

  • View artifacts leaking into the model of MVC

    - by Jono
    In an ASP.NET MVC application (which has very little chance of having its view technology ported to something non-HTML, but whose functional requirements evolve weekly,) how much HTML should ideally be allowed to be directly represented in the Model? I might come across as a design bigot for this, but I regard it as bad practice to allow any view constructs to "leak" into the model in an MVC application (and vice versa). For example, a Model that represents an item you're about to purchase should know nothing about the HTML check box that says "add giftwrap/message", nor should it know about any HTML drop down lists for payment card types. Conversely the View shouldn't be doing work like figuring out button text by translating keys into values (by looking in resource files.)

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to dynamic cast "this" as a return value?

    - by Panayiotis Karabassis
    This is more of a design question. I have a template class, and I want to add extra methods to it depending on the template type. To practice the DRY principle, I have come up with this pattern (definitions intentionally omitted): template <class T> class BaseVector: public boost::array<T, 3> { protected: BaseVector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z); public: bool operator == (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator + (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator - (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> &operator += (const Vector<T> &other) { (*this)[0] += other[0]; (*this)[1] += other[1]; (*this)[2] += other[2]; return *dynamic_cast<Vector<T> * const>(this); } } template <class T> class Vector : public BaseVector<T> { public: Vector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z) : BaseVector<T>(x, y, z) { } }; template <> class Vector<double> : public BaseVector<double> { public: Vector<double>(const double x, const double y, const double z); Vector<double>(const Vector<int> &other); double norm() const; }; I intend BaseVector to be nothing more than an implementation detail. This works, but I am concerned about operator+=. My question is: is the dynamic cast of the this pointer a code smell? Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do (avoid code duplication, and unnecessary casts in the user code)? Or am I safe since, the BaseVector constructor is private?

    Read the article

  • Modular enterprise architecture using MVC and Orchard CMS

    - by MrJD
    I'm making a large scale MVC application using Orchard. And I'm going to be separating my logic into modules. I'm also trying to heavily decouple the application for maximum extensibility and testability. I have a rudimentary understanding of IoC, Repository Pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Service Layer pattern. I've made myself a diagram. I'm wondering if it is correct and if there is anything I have missed regarding an extensible application. Note that each module is a separate project.

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern that allows a constructor to be called only from a specific factory and from nowh

    - by willem
    We have a class, say LegacyUserSettingsService. LegacyUserSettingsService implements an interface, IUserSettingsService. You can get an instance of the IUserSettingsService by calling our ApplicationServicesFactory. The factory uses Spring.NET to construct the concrete LegacyUserSettingsService. The trouble is that new developers sometimes do their own thing and construct new instances of the LegacyUserSettingsService directly (instead of going via the factory). Is there a way to protect the constructor of the concrete class so it can only be called from the factory? A well-known pattern perhaps? Note that the concrete class resides in a different assembly (separate from the Factory's assembly, so the internal keyword is not a solution). The factory assembly references the other assembly that contains the concrete class. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Perls Of Wisdom For a .Net Programmer [closed]

    - by DeanMc
    Hi Guys, I like to think that recently I have moved from complete beginner to beginner. It has been a hard road and one on which I took many wrong turns. Very rarely in any profession is there a place where so many rock stars gather, this is something I would like to take advantage of. What I would like to ask is what are your perls of wisdom for a .net programmer. They can be anything you feel of value, a concept, a book, a process that should be followed, anything of that nature, it doesn't have to be .net specific just contextual. Thanks for taking the time to read this and respond.

    Read the article

  • PHP MVC: How to implement an effective Controller/View Association like ZendFramework guys do!

    - by Navi
    Hi, I am making my own PHP-MVC framework. i have a question regarding Controller and View Association. I love the way Zend framework uses view within Controller as follow: $this->view->data = 'Data here'; so it can be used in view as follow: echo $this->data; I am wondering how can i implement this association. I want to remove codes between /** **/ and want to replace with some magic functions. My codes for controller as as follow: class UserController extends Controller{ /************************************/ public function __construct(){ $this->view = new View(); $this->view->setLayout( 'home' ); } function __destruct(){ $this->view->render(); } /************************************/ public function index(){ $this->redirect('user/login'); } public function login(){ } public function register(){ } public function forgotPassword(){ } } Thanks and best regards, -Navi

    Read the article

  • Including partial views when applying the Mode-View-ViewModel design pattern

    - by Filip Ekberg
    Consider that I have an application that just handles Messages and Users I want my Window to have a common Menu and an area where the current View is displayed. I can only work with either Messages or Users so I cannot work simultaniously with both Views. Therefore I have the following Controls MessageView.xaml UserView.xaml Just to make it a bit easier, both the Message Model and the User Model looks like this: Name Description Now, I have the following three ViewModels: MainWindowViewModel UsersViewModel MessagesViewModel The UsersViewModel and the MessagesViewModel both just fetch an ObserverableCollection<T> of its regarding Model which is bound in the corresponding View like this: <DataGrid ItemSource="{Binding ModelCollection}" /> The MainWindowViewModel hooks up two different Commands that have implemented ICommand that looks something like the following: public class ShowMessagesCommand : ICommand { private ViewModelBase ViewModel { get; set; } public ShowMessagesCommand (ViewModelBase viewModel) { ViewModel = viewModel; } public void Execute(object parameter) { var viewModel = new ProductsViewModel(); ViewModel.PartialViewModel = new MessageView { DataContext = viewModel }; } public bool CanExecute(object parameter) { return true; } public event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged; } And there is another one a like it that will show Users. Now this introduced ViewModelBase which only holds the following: public UIElement PartialViewModel { get { return (UIElement)GetValue(PartialViewModelProperty); } set { SetValue(PartialViewModelProperty, value); } } public static readonly DependencyProperty PartialViewModelProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("PartialViewModel", typeof(UIElement), typeof(ViewModelBase), new UIPropertyMetadata(null)); This dependency property is used in the MainWindow.xaml to display the User Control dynamicly like this: <UserControl Content="{Binding PartialViewModel}" /> There are also two buttons on this Window that fires the Commands: ShowMessagesCommand ShowUsersCommand And when these are fired, the UserControl changes because PartialViewModel is a dependency property. I want to know if this is bad practice? Should I not inject the User Control like this? Is there another "better" alternative that corresponds better with the design pattern? Or is this a nice way of including partial views?

    Read the article

  • Which design pattern is most appropriate?

    - by Anon
    Hello, I want to create a class that can use one of four algorithms (and the algorithm to use is only known at run-time). I was thinking that the Strategy design pattern sounds appropriate, but my problem is that each algorithm requires slightly different parameters. Would it be a bad design to use strategy, but pass in the relevant parameters into the constructor?. Here is an example (for simplicity, let's say there are only two possible algorithms) ... class Foo { private: // At run-time the correct algorithm is used, e.g. a = new Algorithm1(1); AlgorithmInterface* a; }; class AlgorithmInterface { public: virtual void DoSomething = 0; }; class Algorithm1 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm1( int i ) : value(i) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Does something with int value }; int value; }; class Algorithm2 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm2( bool b ) : value(b) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Do something with bool value }; bool value; };

    Read the article

  • some confusions to singleton pattern in PHP

    - by SpawnCxy
    Hi all, In my team I've been told to write resource class like this style: class MemcacheService { private static $instance = null; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance($fortest = false) { if (self::$instance == null) { self::$instance = new Memcached(); if ($fortest) { self::$instance->addServer(MEMTEST_HOST, MEMTEST_PORT); } else { self::$instance->addServer(MEM_HOST, MEM_PORT); } } return self::$instance; } } But I think in PHP resource handles will be released and initialized again every time after a request over. That means MemcacheService::getInstance() is totally equal new Memcached() which cannot be called singleton pattern at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Regards

    Read the article

  • Architecting ASP.net MVC App to use repositories and services

    - by zaladane
    Hello, I recently started reading about ASP.net MVC and after getting excited about the concept, i started to migrate all my webform project to MVC but i am having a hard time keeping my controller skinny even after following all the good advices out there (or maybe i just don't get it ... ). The website i deal with has Articles, Videos, Quotes ... and each of these entities have categories, comments, images that can be associated with it. I am using Linq to sql for database operations and for each of these Entities, i have a Repository, and for each repository, i create a service to be used in the controller. so i have - ArticleRepository ArticleCategoryRepository ArticleCommentRepository and the corresponding service ArticleService ArticleCategoryService ... you see the picture. The problem i have is that i have one controller for article,category and comment because i thought that having ArticleController handle all of that might make sense, but now i have to pass all of the services needed to the Controller constructor. So i would like to know what it is that i am doing wrong. Are my services not designed properly? should i create Bigger service to encapsulate smaller services and use them in my controller? or should i have an articleCategory Controller and an articleComment Controller? A page viewed by the user is made of all of that, thee article to be viewed,the comments associated with it, a listing of the categories to witch it applies ... how can i efficiently break down the controller to keep it "skinny" and solve my headache? Thank you! I hope my question is not too long to be read ...

    Read the article

  • dynamical binding or switch/case?

    - by kingkai
    A scene like this: I've different of objects do the similar operation as respective func() implements. There're 2 kinds of solution for func_manager() to call func() according to different objects Solution 1: Use virtual function character specified in c++. func_manager works differently accroding to different object point pass in. class Object{ virtual void func() = 0; } class Object_A : public Object{ void func() {}; } class Object_B : public Object{ void func() {}; } void func_manager(Object* a) { a->func(); } Solution 2: Use plain switch/case. func_manager works differently accroding to different type pass in typedef _type_t { TYPE_A, TYPE_B }type_t; void func_by_a() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_by_b() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_manager(type_t type) { switch(type){ case TYPE_A: func_by_a(); break; case TYPE_B: func_by_b(); default: break; } } My Question are 2: 1. at the view point of DESIGN PATTERN, which one is better? 2. at the view point of RUNTIME EFFCIENCE, which one is better? Especailly as the kinds of Object increases, may be up to 10-15 total, which one's overhead oversteps the other? I don't know how switch/case implements innerly, just a bunch of if/else? Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • DAO design pattern and using it across multiple tables

    - by Casey
    I'm looking for feedback on the Data Access Object design pattern and using it when you have to access data across multiple tables. It seems like that pattern, which has a DAO for each table along with a Data Transfer Object (DTO) that represents a single row, isn't too useful for when dealing with data from multiple tables. I was thinking about creating a composite DAO and corresponding DTO that would return the result of, let's say performing a join on two tables. This way I can use SQL to grab all the data instead of first grabbing data from one using one DAO and than the second table using the second DAO, and than composing them together in Java. Is there a better solution? And no, I'm not able to move to Hibernate or another ORM tool at the moment. Just straight JDBC for this project.

    Read the article

  • overflow-x AND Middle Mouse Button Moving

    - by Rad The Mad
    My Page is 980px in Width, but I have a few design elements (which belong with the background). I positioned them with position: absolute;. This creates a horizontal scrollbar for those who have a =< 1024 resolution. I disabled that scrollbar with overflow-x:hidden on (and for IE7 and etc). However, when I hold my middle mouse button,(i think this applies to laptop touchpads as well) it let's me move around to the right, is it possible to fix this with anything? (javascript, css)? Tested this issues in Chrome, IE, Firefox.

    Read the article

  • creational pattern for instances depending on multiple subclass instances

    - by markusw
    I have a problem, for that I was not able to identify a suitable design pattern. I want to create instances depending on a given type that has been passed to a factory method. What I am doing until now is the following: T create(SuperType x) { if (x instanceof SubType1) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if (x instanceof SubType2) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if ... } else { throw new UnSupportedOperationException("nothing defined for " + x); } } It seems not to be best pratice for me. Has anybody an idea how to solve this in a better way?

    Read the article

  • QuestionOrAnswer model?

    - by Mark
    My site has Listings. Users can ask Questions about listings, and the author of the listing can respond with an Answer. However, the Answer might need clarification, so I've made them recursive (you can "answer" an answer). So how do I set up the database? The way I have it now looks like this (in Django-style models): class QuestionOrAnswer(Model): user = ForeignKey(User, related_name='questions') listing = ForeignKey(Listing, related_name='questions') parent = models.ForeignKey('self', null=True, blank=True, related_name='children') message = TextField() But what bugs me is that listing is now an attribute of the answers as well (it doesn't need to be). What happens if the database gets mangled and an answer belongs to a different listing than its parent question? That just doesn't make any sense. We can separate it with polymorphism: QuestionOrAnswer user message created updated Question(QuestionOrAnswer) shipment Answer(QuestionOrAnswer) parent = ForeignKey(QuestionOrAnswer) And that ought to work, but now ever question and answer is split into 2 tables. Is it worth this overhead for clearly defined models?

    Read the article

  • MyController class must produce class according to the enum type.

    - by programmerist
    GenoTipController must produce class according to the enum type. i have 3 class: _Company,_Muayene,_Radyoloji. Also i have CompanyView Class GetPersonel method. if you look GenoTipController my codes need refactoring. Can you understand me? i need a class according to ewnum type must me produce class. For example; case DataModelType.Radyoloji it must return radyoloji= new Radyoloji . Everything must be one switch case? public class GenoTipController { public _Company GenerateCompany(DataModelType modeltype) { _Company company = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: company = new Company(); break; default: break; } return company; } public _Muayene GenerateMuayene(DataModelType modeltype) { _Muayene muayene = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: muayene = new Muayene(); break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return muayene; } public _Radyoloji GenerateRadyoloji(DataModelType modeltype) { _Radyoloji radyoloji = null; switch (modeltype) { case DataModelType.Radyoloji: radyoloji = new Radyoloji(); break; case DataModelType.Satis: break; case DataModelType.Muayene: break; case DataModelType.Company: break; default: break; } return radyoloji; } } public class CompanyView { public static List GetPersonel() { GenoTipController controller = new GenoTipController(); _Company company = controller.GenerateCompany(DataModelType.Company); return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { Radyoloji, Satis, Muayene, Company } }

    Read the article

  • How to code for Alternate Course AKA Rainy Day Scenary?

    - by janetsmith
    Alternate course is something when user doesn't do what you expected, e.g. key in wrong password, pressing back button, or database error. For any programming project, alternate course accounts for more than 50% of a project timeline. It is important. However, most computer books only focus on Basic Course (when everything goes fine). Basic course is rather simple, compared to Alternate course, because this is normally given by client. Alternate course is what we, as a programmer or Business Analyst needs to take care of. Java has some built-in mechanism (try-catch) to force us to handle those unexpected behavior. The question is, how to handle them? Any pattern to follow? Any guideline or industry practice for handling alternate course?

    Read the article

  • How to make a jQuery plugin (the right way)?

    - by macek
    I know there are jQuery cookie plugins out there, but I wanted to write one for the sake of better learning the jQuery plugin pattern. I like the separation of "work" in small, manageable functions, but I feel like I'm passing name, value, and options arguments around too much. Is there a way this can be refactored? I'm looking for snippets of code to help illustrate examples provided with in answers. Any help is appreciated. Thanks :) example usage $.cookie('foo', 'bar', {expires:7}); $.cookie('foo'); //=> bar $.cookie('foo', null); $.cookie('foo'); //=> undefined Edit: I did a little bit of work on this. You can view the revision history to see where this has come from. It still feels like more refactoring can be done to optimize the flow a bit. Any ideas? the plugin (function($){ $.cookie = function(name, value, options) { if (typeof value == 'undefined') { return get(name); } else { options = $.extend({}, $.cookie.defaults, options || {}); return (value != null) ? set(name, value, options) : unset(name, options); } }; $.cookie.defaults = { expires: null, path: '/', domain: null, secure: false }; var set = function(name, value, options){ console.log(options); return document.cookie = options_string(name, value, options); }; var get = function(name){ var cookies = {}; $.map(document.cookie.split(';'), function(pair){ var c = $.trim(pair).split('='); cookies[c[0]] = c[1]; }); return decodeURIComponent(cookies[name]); }; var unset = function(name, options){ value = ''; options.expires = -1; set(name, value, options); }; var options_string = function(name, value, options){ var pairs = [param.name(name, value)]; $.each(options, function(k,v){ pairs.push(param[k](v)); }); return $.map(pairs, function(p){ return p === null ? null : p; }).join(';'); }; var param = { name: function(name, value){ return name + "=" + encodeURIComponent(value); }, expires: function(value){ // no expiry if(value === null){ return null; } // number of days else if(typeof value == "number"){ d = new Date(); d.setTime(d.getTime() + (value * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000)); } // date object else if(typeof value == "object" && value instanceof "Date") { d = value; } return "expires=" + d.toUTCString(); }, path: function(value){ return "path="+value; }, domain: function(value){ return value === null ? null : "domain=" + value; }, secure: function(bool){ return bool ? "secure" : null; } }; })(jQuery);

    Read the article

  • How to extend this design for a generic converter in java?

    - by Jay
    Here is a small currency converter piece of code: public enum CurrencyType { DOLLAR(1), POUND(1.2), RUPEE(.25); private CurrencyType(double factor) { this.factor = factor; } private double factor; public double getFactor() { return factor; } } public class Currency { public Currency(double value, CurrencyType type) { this.value = value; this.type = type; } private CurrencyType type; private double value; public CurrencyType getCurrencyType() { return type; } public double getCurrencyValue() { return value; } public void setCurrenctyValue(double value){ this.value = value; } } public class CurrencyConversion { public static Currency convert(Currency c1, Currency c2) throws Exception { if (c1 != null && c2 != null) { c2.setCurrenctyValue(c1.getCurrencyValue() * c1.getCurrencyType().getFactor() * c2.getCurrencyType().getFactor()); return c2; } else throw new Exception(); } } I would like to improve this code to make it work for different units of conversion, for example: kgs to pounds, miles to kms, etc etc. Something that looks like this: public class ConversionManager<T extends Convertible> { public T convert(T c1, T c2) { //return null; } } Appreciate your ideas and suggestions.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64  | Next Page >