Search Results

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

Page 61/146 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

• Process for beginning a Ruby on Rails project

  - by Daniel Beardsley

  I'm about to begin a Ruby on Rails project and I'd love to hear how others go through the process of starting an application design. I have quite a bit of experience with RoR, but don't have that many starting from scratch with only a vision experiences and would appreciate the wisdom of others who've been there. I'm looking for an order of events, reasons for the order, and maybe why each part is important. I can think of a few starting points, but I'm not sure where it's best to begin Model design and relationships (entities, how they relate, and their attributes) Think of user use-cases (or story-boards) and implement the minimum to get these done Create Model unit-tests then create the necessary migrations and AR models to get the tests to pass Hack out the most basic version of the simplest part of your application and go from there Start with a template for a rails app (like http://github.com/thoughtbot/suspenders) Do the boring gruntwork first (User auth, session management, ...) ...

  Read the article

• Regarding the ViewModel

  - by mizipzor

  Im struggling to understand the ViewModel part of the MVVM pattern. My current approach is to have a class, with no logic whatsoever (important), except that it implements INotifyPropertyChanged. The class is just a collection of properties, a struct if you like, describing an as small part of the data as possible. I consider this my Model. Most of the WPF code I write are settings dialogs that configure said Model. The code-behind of the dialog exposes a property which returns an instance of the Model. In the XAML code I bind to subproperties of that property, thereby binding directly to the Model's properties. Which works quite well since it implements the INotifyPropertyChanged. I consider this settings dialog the View. However, I havent really been able to figure out what in all this is the ViewModel. The articles Ive read suggests that the ViewModel should tie the View and the Model together, providing the logic the Model lacks but is still to complex to go directly into the View. Is this correct? Would, in my example, the code-behind of the settings dialog be considered the ViewModel? I just feel a bit lost and would like my peers to debunk some of my assumptions. Am I completely off track here?

  Read the article

• How to apply Abstract Factory Pattern ???

  - by Amit

  I am new to Design Pattern and I have a scenario here... and not sure as how to implement the pattern ... We have multiple vendors Philips, Onida... Each vendor (philips, onida...) may have different type of product i.e. Plasma or Normal TV I want specific product of each vendor using Abstract Factory Pattern... Thanks in advance for any help... My implementation so far... public enum TvType { Samsung = 0,LG = 1,Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { Plasma = 0,NormalTV = 1 } concrete class of each vendor.... that returns each product and also the interface that contains ProductInfo i.e. if Vendor is ... then it must have this product....

  Read the article

• Recommendations with hierarchical data on non-relational databases?

  - by Luki

  I'm developing an web application that uses a non-relational database as a backend (django-nonrel + AppEngine). I need to store some hierarchical data (projects/subproject_1/subproject_N/tasks), and I'm wondering which pattern should I use. For now I thought of: Adjacency List (store the item's parent id) Nested sets (store left and right values for the item) In my case, the depth of nesting for a normal user will not exceed 4-5 levels. Also, on the UI, I would like to have a pagination for the items on the first level, to avoid to load too many items at the first page load. From what I understand so far, nested sets are great when the hierarchy is used more for displaying. Adjacency lists are great when editing on the tree is done often. In my case I guess I need the displaying more than the editing (when using nested sets, even if the display would work great, the above pagination could complicate things on editing). Do you have any thoughts and advice, based on your experience with the non-relational databases?

  Read the article

• C# Linq: Can you merge DataContexts?

  - by Andreas Grech

  Say I have one database, and this database has a set of tables that are general to all Clients and some tables that are specific to certain clients. Now what I have in mind is creating a primary DataContext that includes only the tables that are general to all the clients, and then create separate DataContexts that contain only the tables that are specific to the client. Is there a way to kind of "merge" DataContexts so that it becomes one context? So for Client A, I need one DataContext that includes both the general tables and also the tables for that specific client (retrieved from two different DataContexts) ? [Update] What I think I can do is, from the Partial Class of the DataContext instead of letting my DataContext inherit from DataContext I make it inherit from MyDataContext; that way, the tables from MyDataContext and the other DataContext will be available in one DataContext class. What do you think about this approach? Of course with something like this you can only merge two datacontexts at once though...

  Read the article

• Java: Make a method abstract for each extending class

  - by Martijn Courteaux

  Hi, Is there any keyword or design pattern for doing this? public abstract class Root { public abstract void foo(); } public abstract class SubClass extends Root { public void foo() { // Do something } } public class SubberClass extends SubClass { // Here is it not necessary to override foo() // So is there a way to make this necessary? // A way to obligate the developer make again the override } Thanks

  Read the article

• Design pattern for adding / removing elements

  - by de3

  Wikipedia's definition for Iterator pattern design: the Iterator pattern is a design pattern in which iterators are used to access the elements of an aggregate object sequentially without exposing its underlying implementation. Iterator interface in java provides the following methods hasNext() next() remove() Is there a pattern design, or a java interface for inserting / deleting elements, and getting length of the aggregate object, in addition to iterating them? I know remove() is an optional method that can be used once per call to next(), but I am implementing a circular FIFO array and need a method delete() independent of iterator's next().

  Read the article

• Lazy loading? Better avoiding it?

  - by Charlie Pigarelli

  I just read about this design pattern: Lazy Load. And, since in the application i'm working on i have all the classes in one folder, i was wondering if this pattern could just make me avoiding the include() function for every class. I mean: It's nice to know that if i forgot to include a class, PHP, before falling into an error, trough an __autoload() function try to get it. But is it fine enough to just don't care about including classes and let PHP do it by your own every time? Or we should write __autoload() just in case it is needed?

  Read the article

• Pattern for creating a database schema using JDBC

  - by Space_C0wb0y

  I have a Java-application that loads data from a legacy file format into an SQLite-Database using JDBC. If the database file specified does not exist, it is supposed to create a new one. Currently the schema for the database is hardcoded in the application. I would much rather have it in a separate file as an SQL-Script, but apparently there is now easy way to execute an SQL-Script though JDBC. Is there any other way or a pattern to achieve something like this?

  Read the article

• .Net - Whats the difference between a Session Facade and Business Delegate?

  - by KP65

  What I understand so far: Business Delegate - In the presentation tier, as an ASP component, provides an interface for ASP views to access business components without exposing their API, therefore reducing coupling between the two. Session Facade - In the business tier, as a com+ component, encapsulates business objects, provides a course grain interface for views to access business components. Reduces coupling, hides complex business component interaction from views. So what is the actual difference? They seem pretty similar to me..

  Read the article

• Managing libraries and imports in a programming language

  - by sub

  I've created an interpreter for a stupid programming language in C++ and the whole core structure is finished (Tokenizer, Parser, Interpreter including Symbol tables, core functions, etc.). Now I have a problem with creating and managing the function libraries for this interpreter (I'll explain what I mean with that later) So currently my core function handler is horrible: // Simplified version myLangResult SystemFunction( name, argc, argv ) { if ( name == "print" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } cout << argv[ 0 ]; } else if ( name == "input" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } string res; getline( cin, res ); SetVariable( argv[ 0 ], res ); } else if ( name == "exit ) { exit( 0 ); } And now think of each else if being 10 times more complicated and there being 25 more system functions. Unmaintainable, feels horrible, is horrible. So I thought: How to create some sort of libraries that contain all the functions and if they are imported initialize themselves and add their functions to the symbol table of the running interpreter. However this is the point where I don't really know how to go on. What I wanted to achieve is that there is e.g.: an (extern?) string library for my language, e.g.: string, and it is imported from within a program in that language, example: import string myString = "abcde" print string.at( myString, 2 ) # output: c My problems: How to separate the function libs from the core interpreter and load them? How to get all their functions into a list and add it to the symbol table when needed? What I was thinking to do: At the start of the interpreter, as all libraries are compiled with it, every single function calls something like RegisterFunction( string namespace, myLangResult (*functionPtr) ); which adds itself to a list. When import X is then called from within the language, the list built with RegisterFunction is then added to the symbol table. Disadvantages that spring to mind: All libraries are directly in the interpreter core, size grows and it will definitely slow it down.

  Read the article

• wpf command pattern

  - by evan

  I have a wpf gui which displays a list of information in separate window and in a separate thread from the main application. As the user performs actions in the main window the side window is updated. (For example if you clicked page down in the main window a listbox in the side window would page down). Right now the architecture for this application feels very messy and I'm sure there is a cleaner way to do it. It looks like this: Main Window contains a singleton SideWindowControl which communicates with an instance of the SideWindowDisplay using events - so, for example, the pagedown button would work like: 1) the event handler of the button on the main window calls SideWindowControl.PageDown() 2) in the PageDown() function a event is created and thrown. 3) finally the gui, ShowSideWindowDisplay is subscribing to the SideWindowControl.Actions event handles the event and actually scrolls the listbox down - note because it is in a different thread it has to do that by running the command via Dispatcher.Invoke() This just seems like a very messy way to this and there must be a clearer way (The only part that can't change is that the main window and the side window must be on different threads). Perhaps using WPF commands? I'd really appreciate any suggestions!! Thanks

  Read the article

• WPF binding to a boolean on a control

  - by Jose

  I'm wondering if someone has a simple succinct solution to binding to a dependency property that needs to be the converse of the property. Here's an example I have a textbox that is disabled based on a property in the datacontext e.g.: <TextBox IsEnabled={Binding CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> The requirement changes and I want to make it ReadOnly instead of disabled, so without changing my ViewModel I could do this: In the UserControl resources: <UserControl.Resources> <m:NotConverter x:Key="NotConverter"/> </UserControl.Resources> And then change the TextBox to: <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding CanEdit,Converter={StaticResource NotConverter}} Text={Binding MyText}/> Which I personally think is EXTREMELY verbose I would love to be able to just do this(notice the !): <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding !CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> But alas, that is not an option that I know of. I can think of two options. Create an attached property IsNotReadOnly to FrameworkElement(?) and bind to that property If I change my ViewModel then I could add a property CanEdit and another CannotEdit which I would be kind of embarrassed of because I believe it adds an irrelevant property to a class, which I don't think is a good practice. The main reason for the question is that in my project the above isn't just for one control, so trying to keep my project as DRY as possible and readable I am throwing this out to anyone feeling my pain and has come up with a solution :)

  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

• In M-V-VM where does my code go?

  - by Nate Bross

  So, this is a pretty basic question I hope. I have a web service that I've added through Add Service Reference. It has some methods to get list and get detail of a perticular table in my database. What I'm trying to do is setup a UI as follows: App Load Load service proxy Call the GetList(); method display the results in a ListBox control User Double Clicks item in ListBox, display a modal dialog with a "detail" view I'm extremely new to using MVVM, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Additional information: // Service Interface (simplification): interface IService { IEnumerable<MyObject> GetList(); MyObject GetDetail(int id); } // Data object (simplification) class MyObject { public int ID { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } I'm thinking I should have something like this: MainWindow MyObjectViewUserControl Displays list Opens modal window on double click Specific Questions: What would my ViewModel class look like? Where does the code to handle the double click go? Inside the UserControl? Sorry for the long details, but I'm very new to the whole thing and I'm not educated enough to ask the right questions. I checked out the MVVM Sample from wpf.codeplex.com and something isn't quite clicking for me yet, because it seems very confusing.

  Read the article

• Exploring the Factory Design Pattern

  - by asksuperuser

  There was an article here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Ee817667%28pandp.10%29.aspx The first part of tut implemented this pattern with abstract classes. The second part shows an example with Interface class. But nothing in this article discusses why this pattern would rather use abstract or interface. So what explanation (advantages of one over the other) would you give ? Not in general but for this precise pattern.

  Read the article

• DI with disposable objects

  - by sunnychaganty

  Suppose my repository class looks like this: class myRepository : IDisposable{ private DataContext _context; public myRepository(DataContext context){ _context = context; } public void Dispose(){ // to do: implement dispose of DataContext } } now, I am using Unity to control the lifetime of my repository & the data context & configured the lifetimes as: DataContext - singleton myRepository - create a new instance each time Does this mean that I should not be implementing the IDisposable on the repository to clean up the DataContext? Any guidance on such items?

  Read the article

• Proper design a Model-Controller in Cocoa?

  - by legege

  Hi, I'm trying to design a simple Cocoa application and I would like to have a clear and easy to understand software architecture. Of course, I'm using a basic MVC design and my question concerns the Model layer. For my application, the Model represents data fetched on the Internet with a XML-RPC API. I'm planning to use Core Data to represent a locally fetched version. How should the data be loaded initially? I'm reading the Cocoa Design Pattern book, and they talk about a Model-Controller that is centric to the Model. How would that be done? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Pattern or recommneded refactoring for method

  - by iKode

  I've written a method that looks like this: public TimeSlotList processTimeSlots (DateTime startDT, DateTime endDT, string bookingType, IList<Booking> normalBookings, GCalBookings GCalBookings, List<DateTime> otherApiBookings) { { ..... common process code ...... while (utcTimeSlotStart < endDT) { if (bookingType == "x") { //process normal bookings using IList<Booking> normalBookings } else if (bookingType == "y") { //process google call bookings using GCalBookings GCalBookings } else if (bookingType == "z" { //process other apibookings using List<DateTime> otherApiBookings } } } So I'm calling this from 3 different places, each time passing a different booking type, and each case passing the bookings I'm interested in processing, as well as 2 empty objects that aren't used for this booking type. I'm not able to get bookings all into the same datatype, which would make this easier and each booking type needs to be processed differently, so I'm not sure how I can improve this. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Design pattern to integrate Rails with a Comet server

  - by empire29

  I have a Ruby on Rails (2.3.5) application and an APE (Ajax Push Engine) server. When records are created within the Rails application, i need to push the new record out on applicable channels to the APE server. Records can be created in the rails app by the traditional path through the controller's create action, or it can be created by several event machines that are constantly monitoring various inputstream and creating records when they see data that meets a certain criteria. It seems to me that the best/right place to put the code that pushes the data out to the APE server (which in turn pushes it out to the clients) is in the Model's after_create hook (since not all record creations will flow through the controller's create action). The final caveat is I want to push a piece of formatted HTML out to the APE server (rather than a JSON representation of the data). The reason I want to do this is 1) I already have logic to produce the desired layout in existing partials 2) I don't want to create a javascript implementation of the partials (javascript that takes a JSON object and creates all the HTML around it for presentation). This would quickly become a maintenance nightmare. The problem with this is it would require "rendering" partials from within the Model (which im having trouble doing anyhow because they don't seem to have access to Helpers when they're rendered in this manner). Anyhow - Just wondering what the right way to go about organizing all of this is. Thanks

  Read the article

• Architecture of a single-page JavaScript web application?

  - by fig-gnuton

  How should a complex single-page JS web application be structured on the client-side? Specifically I'm curious about how to cleanly structure the application in terms of its model objects, UI components, any controllers, and objects handling server persistence. MVC seemed like a fit at first. But with UI components nested at various depths (each with their own way of acting on/reacting to model data, and each generating events which they themselves may or may not handle directly), it doesn't seem like MVC can be cleanly applied. (But please correct me if that's not the case.) -- (This question resulted in two suggestions of using ajax, which is obviously needed for anything other than the most trivial one-page app.)

  Read the article

• Limit number of parameters per method?

  - by Farstucker

  Assuming the parameters are all the same type, is there a rule of thumb in regards to the number of parameters for a method? Im just wondering where I should draw the line and what my alternatives are (ie interface, array, etc).

  Read the article

• Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern [.net/c#]

  - by gsharp

  Hi We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-) Thanks for you help.

  Read the article

• Re-factoring from Active Record to Data Mapper

  - by Owen

  have you re-factored from an Active Record to a Data Mapper pattern? what conditions prompted the switch? i'm primarily interested in web based applications, but would like to know the challenges that accompany such a move in any environment.

  Read the article

• Improving MVP in Scala

  - by Alexey Romanov

  The classical strongly typed MVP pattern looks like this in Scala: trait IView { } trait Presenter[View <: IView] { // or have it as an abstract type member val view : View } case class View1(...) extends IView { ... } case object Presenter1 extends Presenter[View1] { val view = View1(...) } Now, I wonder if there is any nice way to improve on it which I am missing...

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >