Search Results

Search found 17326 results on 694 pages for 'design pattern'.

Page 6/694 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• Observer pattern for unpredictable observation time

  - by JoJo

  I have a situation where objects are created at unpredictable times. Some of these objects are created before an important event, some after. If the event already happened, I make the object execute stuff right away. If the event is forthcoming, I make the object observe the event. When the event triggers, the object is notified and executes the same code. if (subject.eventAlreadyHappened()) { observer.executeStuff(); } else { subject.subscribe(observer); } Is there another design pattern to wrap or even replace this observer pattern? I think it looks a little dirty to me.

  Read the article

• How can you tell whether to use Composite Pattern or a Tree Structure, or a third implementation?

  - by Aske B.

  I have two client types, an "Observer"-type and a "Subject"-type. They're both associated with a hierarchy of groups. The Observer will receive (calendar) data from the groups it is associated with throughout the different hierarchies. This data is calculated by combining data from 'parent' groups of the group trying to collect data (each group can have only one parent). The Subject will be able to create the data (that the Observers will receive) in the groups they're associated with. When data is created in a group, all 'children' of the group will have the data as well, and they will be able to make their own version of a specific area of the data, but still linked to the original data created (in my specific implementation, the original data will contain time-period(s) and headline, while the subgroups specify the rest of the data for the receivers directly linked to their respective groups). However, when the Subject creates data, it has to check if all affected Observers have any data that conflicts with this, which means a huge recursive function, as far as I can understand. So I think this can be summed up to the fact that I need to be able to have a hierarchy that you can go up and down in, and some places be able to treat them as a whole (recursion, basically). Also, I'm not just aiming at a solution that works. I'm hoping to find a solution that is relatively easy to understand (architecture-wise at least) and also flexible enough to be able to easily receive additional functionality in the future. Is there a design pattern, or a good practice to go by, to solve this problem or similar hierarchy problems? EDIT: Here's the design I have: The "Phoenix"-class is named that way because I didn't think of an appropriate name yet. But besides this I need to be able to hide specific activities for specific observers, even though they are attached to them through the groups. A little Off-topic: Personally, I feel that I should be able to chop this problem down to smaller problems, but it escapes me how. I think it's because it involves multiple recursive functionalities that aren't associated with each other and different client types that needs to get information in different ways. I can't really wrap my head around it. If anyone can guide me in a direction of how to become better at encapsulating hierarchy problems, I'd be very glad to receive that as well.

  Read the article

• What is a useful pattern to maintaining an object state in a one to many relationship?

  - by ahenderson

  I am looking for a design for my application, here are the players(classes) involved. struct Transform { // Uses a matrix to transform the position. // Also acts acts as the state of a Dialog. Position transform(Position p); //other methods. }; struct Dialog { // There are multiple dialog for the user to transform the output. Transform& t; void ChangeTranformation(){t.rotate(360);} } struct Algorithm { //gives us a position based on an implementation. For example this can return points on a circle or line. Transform& t; Position m_p; Dialog& d; Position GetCurrentPosition(){ return t.transform(m_p);} //other methods. } Properties I need: Each algorithms has one dialog and each dialog can have many algorithms associated with it. When the user selects an algorithm a dialog associated with that algorithm is displayed. If the user selects a different algorithm then re-selects back the state is restored in the dialog. Basically I want a good design pattern to maintain the state of the dialog given that many algorithms use it and they can be switched back and forth. Does anyone have any suggestions? Here is a use case: Dialog1 has a single edit box to control the radius. Algorithm1 generates points on a unit circle. Algorithm2 is the same as Algorithm1. The user has selected Algorithm1 and entered 2 into the edit box. This will generate points on a circle of radius 2. The user then selects Algorithm2 and enters 10 into the edit box of Dialog1. This will generate points on a circle of radius 10. Finally Algorithm1 is selected again. The edit box of Dialog1 should show 2 and points on a circle of radius 2 should be generated.

  Read the article

• How to design database for tests in online test application

  - by Kien Thanh

  I'm building an online test application, the purpose of app is, it can allow teacher create courses, topics of course, and questions (every question has mark), and they can create tests for students and students can do tests online. To create tests of any courses for students, first teacher need to create a test pattern for that course, test pattern actually is a general test includes the number of questions teacher want it has, then from that test pattern, teacher will generate number of tests corresponding with number of students will take tests of that course, and every test for student will has different number of questions, although the max mark of test in every test are the same. Example if teacher generate tests for two students, the max mark of test will be 20, like this: Student A take test with 20 questions, student B take test only has 10 questions, it means maybe every question in test of student A only has mark is 1, but questions in student B has mark is 2. So 20 = 10 x 2, sorry for my bad English but I don't know how to explain it better. I have designed tables for: - User (include students and teachers account) - Course - Topic - Question - Answer But I don't know how to define associations between user and test pattern, test, question. Currently I only can think these: Test pattern table: name, description, dateStart, dateFinish, numberOfMinutes, maxMarkOfTest Test table: test_pattern_id And when user (is Student) take tests, I think i will have one more table: Result: user_id, test_id, mark but I can't set up associations among test pattern and test and question. How to define associations?

  Read the article

• PHP Aspect Oriented Design

  - by Devin Dixon

  This is a continuation of this Code Review question. What was taken away from that post, and other aspect oriented design is it is hard to debug. To counter that, I implemented the ability to turn tracing of the design patterns on. Turning trace on works like: //This can be added anywhere in the code Run::setAdapterTrace(true); Run::setFilterTrace(true); Run::setObserverTrace(true); //Execute the functon echo Run::goForARun(8); In the actual log with the trace turned on, it outputs like so: adapter 2012-02-12 21:46:19 {"type":"closure","object":"static","call_class":"\/public_html\/examples\/design\/ClosureDesigns.php","class":"Run","method":"goForARun","call_method":"goForARun","trace":"Run::goForARun","start_line":68,"end_line":70} filter 2012-02-12 22:05:15 {"type":"closure","event":"return","object":"static","class":"run_filter","method":"\/home\/prodigyview\/public_html\/examples\/design\/ClosureDesigns.php","trace":"Run::goForARun","start_line":51,"end_line":58} observer 2012-02-12 22:05:15 {"type":"closure","object":"static","class":"run_observer","method":"\/home\/prodigyview\/public_html\/public\/examples\/design\/ClosureDesigns.php","trace":"Run::goForARun","start_line":61,"end_line":63} When the information is broken down, the data translates to: Called by an adapter or filter or observer The function called was a closure The location of the closure Class:method the adapter was implemented on The Trace of where the method was called from Start Line and End Line The code has been proven to work in production environments and features various examples of to implement, so the proof of concept is there. It is not DI and accomplishes things that DI cannot. I wouldn't call the code boilerplate but I would call it bloated. In summary, the weaknesses are bloated code and a learning curve in exchange for aspect oriented functionality. Beyond the normal fear of something new and different, what are other weakness in this implementation of aspect oriented design, if any? PS: More examples of AOP here: https://github.com/ProdigyView/ProdigyView/tree/master/examples/design

  Read the article

• Command Design Pattern

  - by pchajer

  After reading command design pattern, I have a couple of question - Why we are creating concrete command and receiver object on client. Can't this initialization on invoker class? I think client should create invoker and pass it's request to invoker. Invoker should take care of all the stuff. By doing this, We have less dependency on client. The design of class diagram is totally different from actual design.

  Read the article

• When modeling a virtual circuit board, what is the best design pattern to check for cycles?

  - by Wallace Brown

  To make it simple assume you have only AND and OR gates. Each has two inputs and one output. The output of two inputs can be used as an input for the next gate For example: A AND B - E C AND D - F E OR F - G Assuming an arbitrary number of gates, we want to check if the circuit ever connects back into itself at an earlier state? For example: E AND F - A This should be illegal since it creates an endless cycle. What design pattern would best be able to check for these cycles?

  Read the article

• What is the rationale behind Apache Jena's *everything is an interface if possible* design philosophy?

  - by David Cowden

  If you are familiar with the Java RDF and OWL engine Jena, then you have run across their philosophy that everything should be specified as an interface when possible. This means that a Resource, Statement, RDFNode, Property, and even the RDF Model, etc., are, contrary to what you might first think, Interfaces instead of concrete classes. This leads to the use of Factories quite often. Since you can't instantiate a Property or Model, you must have something else do it for you --the Factory design pattern. My question, then, is, what is the reasoning behind using this pattern as opposed to a traditional class hierarchy system? It is often perfectly viable to use either one. For example, if I want a memory backed Model instead of a database-backed Model I could just instantiate those classes, I don't need ask a Factory to give me one. As an aside, I'm in the process of writing a library for manipulating Pearltrees data, which is exported from their website in the form of an RDF/XML document. As I write this library, I have many options for defining the relationships present in the Peartrees data. What is nice about the Pearltrees data is that it has a very logical class system: A tree is made up of pearls, which can be either Page, Reference, Alias, or Root pearls. My question comes from trying to figure out if I should adopt the Jena philosophy in my library which uses Jena, or if I should disregard it, pick my own design philosophy, and stick with it.

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• would a composite design pattern be useful for group membership?

  - by changokun

  I'm trying to think about the best way to handle group memberships on a website. People sign up and select checkboxes in a list of interests. Every week we send out interest-themed emails to those members that indicated that interest. however i store the information in the database, while i am working with the lists and generating lists of email addresses or manipulating group memberships, the composite design pattern looked interesting. it would be easy to populate the group, then do some aggregating functions that say... generate the list of email addresses based on the interests. but i'm not sure i'm seeing any other advantages. i do need something scalable, and flexible. thoughts?

  Read the article

• How to improve the builder pattern?

  - by tangens

  Motivation Recently I searched for a way to initialize a complex object without passing a lot of parameter to the constructor. I tried it with the builder pattern, but I don't like the fact, that I'm not able to check at compile time if I really set all needed values. Traditional builder pattern When I use the builder pattern to create my Complex object, the creation is more "typesafe", because it's easier to see what an argument is used for: new ComplexBuilder() .setFirst( "first" ) .setSecond( "second" ) .setThird( "third" ) ... .build(); But now I have the problem, that I can easily miss an important parameter. I can check for it inside the build() method, but that is only at runtime. At compile time there is nothing that warns me, if I missed something. Enhanced builder pattern Now my idea was to create a builder, that "reminds" me if I missed a needed parameter. My first try looks like this: public class Complex { private String m_first; private String m_second; private String m_third; private Complex() {} public static class ComplexBuilder { private Complex m_complex; public ComplexBuilder() { m_complex = new Complex(); } public Builder2 setFirst( String first ) { m_complex.m_first = first; return new Builder2(); } public class Builder2 { private Builder2() {} Builder3 setSecond( String second ) { m_complex.m_second = second; return new Builder3(); } } public class Builder3 { private Builder3() {} Builder4 setThird( String third ) { m_complex.m_third = third; return new Builder4(); } } public class Builder4 { private Builder4() {} Complex build() { return m_complex; } } } } As you can see, each setter of the builder class returns a different internal builder class. Each internal builder class provides exactly one setter method and the last one provides only a build() method. Now the construction of an object again looks like this: new ComplexBuilder() .setFirst( "first" ) .setSecond( "second" ) .setThird( "third" ) .build(); ...but there is no way to forget a needed parameter. The compiler wouldn't accept it. Optional parameters If I had optional parameters, I would use the last internal builder class Builder4 to set them like a "traditional" builder does, returning itself. Questions Is this a well known pattern? Does it have a special name? Do you see any pitfalls? Do you have any ideas to improve the implementation - in the sense of fewer lines of code?

  Read the article

• Design Pattern for Social Game Mission Mechanics

  - by Furkan ÇALISKAN

  When we want to design a mission sub-system like in the The Ville or Sims Social, what kind of design pattern / idea would fit the best? There may be relation between missions (first do this then this etc...) or not. What do you think sims social or the ville or any other social games is using for this? I'm looking for a best-practise method to contruct a mission framework for tha game. How the well-known game firms do this stuff for their large scale social facebook games? Giving missions to the players and wait players to complete them. when they finished the missions, providing a method to catch this mission complete events considering large user database by not using server-side not so much to prevent high-traffic / resource consumption. how should i design the database and server-client communication to achive this design condidering this trade-off.

  Read the article

• Does my use of the strategy pattern violate the fundamental MVC pattern in iOS?

  - by Goodsquirrel

  I'm about to use the 'strategy' pattern in my iOS app, but feel like my approach violates the somehow fundamental MVC pattern. My app is displaying visual "stories", and a Story consists (i.e. has @properties) of one Photo and one or more VisualEvent objects to represent e.g. animated circles or moving arrows on the photo. Each VisualEvent object therefore has a eventType @property, that might be e.g. kEventTypeCircle or kEventTypeArrow. All events have things in common, like a startTime @property, but differ in the way they are being drawn on the StoryPlayerView. Currently I'm trying to follow the MVC pattern and have a StoryPlayer object (my controller) that knows about both the model objects (like Story and all kinds of visual events) and the view object StoryPlayerView. To chose the right drawing code for each of the different visual event types, my StoryPlayer is using a switch statement. @implementation StoryPlayer // (...) - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { switch (event.eventType) { case kEventTypeCircle: [self showCircleEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; case kEventTypeArrow: [self showArrowDrawingEvent:event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; break; // (...) } But switch statements for type checking are bad design, aren't they? According to Uncle Bob they lead to tight coupling and can and should almost always be replaced by polymorphism. Having read about the "Strategy"-Pattern in Head First Design Patterns, I felt this was a great way to get rid of my switch statement. So I changed the design like this: All specialized visual event types are now subclasses of an abstract VisualEvent class that has a showOnStoryPlayerView: method. @interface VisualEvent : NSObject - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView; // abstract Each and every concrete subclass implements a concrete specialized version of this drawing behavior method. @implementation CircleVisualEvent - (void)showOnStoryPlayerView:(StoryPlayerView *)storyPlayerView { [storyPlayerView drawCircleAtPoint:self.position color:self.color lineWidth:self.lineWidth radius:self.radius]; } The StoryPlayer now simply calls the same method on all types of events. @implementation StoryPlayer - (void)showVisualEvent:(VisualEvent *)event onStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView { [event showOnStoryPlayerView:storyPlayerView]; } The result seems to be great: I got rid of the switch statement, and if I ever have to add new types of VisualEvents in the future, I simply create new subclasses of VisualEvent. And I won't have to change anything in StoryPlayer. But of cause this approach violates the MVC pattern since now my model has to know about and depend on my view! Now my controller talks to my model and my model talks to the view calling methods on StoryPlayerView like drawCircleAtPoint:color:lineWidth:radius:. But this kind of calls should be controller code not model code, right?? Seems to me like I made things worse. I'm confused! Am I completely missing the point of the strategy pattern? Is there a better way to get rid of the switch statement without breaking model-view separation?

  Read the article

• Teacher demands excessive/unjustified use of Design Patterns

  - by SoboLAN

  I study computer science and I have a class called "Programming Techniques". Its purpose is to teach (us) good object oriented design principles. During the semester we have homeworks, programs that we must write to demonstrate what we've learned. The lab assistant demands for each of these homeworks that specific design patterns should be used. For example, the current homework is an application used for processing customer orders. We are demanded to use either "Factory Method" or "Abstract Factory" design patterns for this. It gets even worse: at the end of the semester we must write a program (something more complex) that must use at least one creational pattern, at least one structural pattern and at least one behavioural pattern. Is it normal to demand this ? I mean, forcing us to design our programs in such a way that a specific design pattern makes sense is just beyond what I consider ok. If I'm a car mechanic and have a huge tool box, then I will use a certain tool from that box if and when the situation demands it. Not more, not less. If my design of the application doesn't demand at all the use of "Abstract Factory" (for example), then why should I implement it ? I'm not sure yet if the senior lecturer agrees with what the lab assistant is demanding, but I want to talk to him about it and I need solid arguments to do so. How should I approach this problem with him ? PS: I'm sure there must be a better way to teach us these things. Maybe making us each week read about 3 design patterns and the next week giving us a test with small but specific programming or architectural situations/problems. The goal in that test would be to identify what design patterns would make sense and how they could be implemented. This way, he can see if we understand them. EDIT: These homeworks are not just 100-line programs, they have quite a lot of requirements and are fairly complicated. This is the reason we have about 2 - 3 weeks of deadline for each of them. I agree that practicing this is the best way to learn. But shouldn't smaller programs/applications be used for this ? Something just for demonstrating purposes. Not big programs with lots of requirements/classes/etc.

  Read the article

• Getting a design company to embrace the benefits of good development

  - by Toby

  I know there are already various topics discussing what we can do to get managers to buy into good development practices, but I was wondering if there are any specific things we can do to explain to designers that Web Development is more than just turning their design into a website. I want to try and push them to design based on progressive enhancement, responsive design and ajax but I think there is a trend to stick to the print based design principles, which is understandable as it is their background, but is frustrating to a dev.

  Read the article

• Making a design for a Problem [closed]

  - by Vaibhav Agarwal

  I have written many codes using OOPS and I am still to understand when is a code good enough to be accepted by experts. The thought procedure of every man is different and so is the design. My question is should I do something in particular to design my programs in such a way that they are good enough to be accepted by people. Other thing I have also read Head First Object Oriented Design but at last I feel that the way they design the problems is much different I would have designed them.

  Read the article

• How do you deal with design in Scrum?

  - by Seth

  How do you deal with design in Scrum? Do you still have well written design documents for each scrum iteration? Do you just do design notes featuring UML diagrams? Or do you just have well commented code? Each iteration may involve changing design so I just wanted to know how people capture this so new developers have an easy job of understanding the domain and getting on board as rapidly as possible.

  Read the article

• How do you deal with design in Scrum?

  - by Seth

  How do you deal with design in Scrum? Do you still have well written design documents for each scrum iteration? Do you just do design notes featuring UML diagrams? Or do you just have well commented code? Each iteration may involve changing design so I just wanted to know how people capture this so new developers have an easy job of understanding the domain and getting on board as rapidly as possible.

  Read the article

• Help with MVC design pattern?

  - by user3681240

  I am trying to build a java program for user login but I am not sure if my MVC design is accurate. I have the following classes: LoginControl - servlet LoginBean - data holder java class with private variables getters and setters LoginDAO - concrete java class where I am running my SQL queries and doing rest of the logical work. Connection class - java class just to connect to the database view - jsp to display the results html - used for form Is this how you design a java program based on MVC design pattern? Please provide some suggestions?

  Read the article

• What is this Design Pattern?

  - by Can't Tell

  I read the Wikipedia articles on FactoryMethod and AbstractFactory but the following code doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Can someone explain to me what the following pattern is or if it is an anti-pattern? interace PaymentGateway{ void makePayment(); } class PaypalPaymentGateway implements PaymentGateway { public void makePayment() { //some implementation } } class AuthorizeNetPaymentGateway implements PaymentGateway { public void makePayment() { //some implementation } } class PaymentGatewayFacotry{ PaymentGateway createPaymentGateway(int gatewayId) { if(gatewayId == 1) return PaypalPaymentGateway(); else if(gatewayId == 2) return AuthorizeNetPaymentGateway(); } } Let's say the user selects the payment method using a radio button on an html page and the gatewayId is derived from the radio button value. I have seen code like this and thought it was the AbstractFactory pattern but after reading the Wikipedia article, I'm having doubts.

  Read the article

• Parallel Class/Interface Hierarchy with the Facade Design Pattern?

  - by Mike G

  About a third of my code is wrapped inside a Facade class. Note that this isn't a "God" class, but actually represents a single thing (called a Line). Naturally, it delegates responsibilities to the subsystem behind it. What ends up happening is that two of the subsystem classes (Output and Timeline) have all of their methods duplicated in the Line class, which effectively makes Line both an Output and a Timeline. It seems to make sense to make Output and Timeline interfaces, so that the Line class can implement them both. At the same time, I'm worried about creating parallel class and interface structures. You see, there are different types of lines AudioLine, VideoLine, which all use the same type of Timeline, but different types of Output (AudioOutput and VideoOutput, respectively). So that would mean that I'd have to create an AudioOutputInterface and VideoOutputInterface as well. So not only would I have to have parallel class hierarchy, but there would be a parallel interface hierarchy as well. Is there any solution to this design flaw? Here's an image of the basic structure (minus the Timeline class, though know that each Line has-a Timeline): NOTE: I just realized that the word 'line' in Timeline might make is sound like is does a similar function as the Line class. They don't, just to clarify.

  Read the article

• Observer pattern used with decorator pattern

  - by icelated

  I want to make a program that does an order entry system for beverages. ( i will probably do description, cost) I want to use the Decorator pattern and the observer pattern. I made a UML drawing and saved it as a pic for easy viewing. This site wont let me upload as a word doc so i have to upload a pic - i hope its easily viewable.... I need to know if i am doing the UML / design patterns correctly before moving on to the coding part. Beverage is my abstract component class. Espresso, houseblend, darkroast are my concrete subject classes.. I also have a condiment decorator class milk,mocha,soy,whip. would be my observer? because they would be interested in data changes to cost? Now, would the espresso,houseblend etc, be my SUBJECT and the condiments be my observer? My theory is that Cost is a changes and that the condiments need to know the changes? So, subject = esspresso,houseblend,darkroast,etc.. // they hold cost() Observer = milk,mocha,soy,whip? // they hold cost() would be the concrete components and the milk,mocha,soy,whip? would be the decorator! So, following good software engineering practices "design to an interface and not implementation" or "identify things that change from those that dont" would i need a costbehavior interface? If you look at the UML you will see where i am going with this and see if i am implementing observer + Decorator pattern correctly? I think the decorator is correct. since, the pic is not very viewable i will detail the classes here: Beverage class(register observer, remove observer, notify observer, description) these classes are the concrete beverage classes espresso, houseblend,darkroast, decaf(cost,getdescription,setcost,costchanged) interface observer class(update) // cost? interface costbehavior class(cost) // since this changes? condiment decorator class( getdescription) concrete classes that are linked to the 2 interface s and decorator are: milk,mocha,soy,whip(cost,getdescription,update) these are my decorator/ wrapper classes. Thank you.. Is there a way to make this picture bigger?

  Read the article

• Command Pattern vs. Visitor Pattern

  - by grefly

  Is it generally acceptable to allow a Visitor to modify state of the Receiver, or should that be a Command pattern instead?

  Read the article

• Pattern for Accessing MySQL connection

  - by Dipan Mehta

  We have an application which is C++ trying to access MySQL database. There are several (about 5 or so) threads in the application (with Boost library for threading) and in each thread has a few objects, each of which is trying to access Database for its' own purpose. It has a simple ORM kind of model but that really is not an important factor here. There are three potential access patterns i can think of: There could be single connection object per application or thread and is shared between all (or group). The object needs to be thread safe and there will be contentions but MySQL will not be fired with too many connections. Every object could initiate connection on its own. The database needs to take care of concurrency (which i think MySQL can) and the design could be much simpler. There could be two possibilities here. a. either object keeps a persistent connection for its life OR b. object initiate connection as and when needed. To simplify the contention as in case of 1 and not to create too many sockets as in case of 2, we can have group/set based connections. So there could be there could be more than one connection (say N), each of this connection could be shared connection across M objects. Naturally, each of the pattern has different resource cost and would work under different constraints and objectives. What criteria should i use to choose the pattern of this for my own application? What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these pattern over the other? Are there any other pattern which is better? PS: I have been through these questions: mysql, one connection vs multiple and MySQL with mutiple threads and processes But they don't quite answer exactly what i am trying to ask.

  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

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >