Search Results

Search found 49320 results on 1973 pages for 'system architecture'.

Page 87/1973 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • What do you do when the code isn't complicated enough?

    - by Chris
    After six months of development on a project, our stakeholders have had a "gut check" and have decided that the path that we've been walking (a custom designed application framework and data access layer) is holding us (the developers) back from quickly developing the features they would like to see. After several days of debate management and the development team have decided to scrap the current incarnation and start over using ASP.net MVC, with Entity Framework as the bases of the a 'quick and dirty', lets just get it done project. In days following, our senior developer who has never worked with MVC or Entity Framework has finally gotten into a sample project and done some work. His take on ASP.net MVC, "this is not software engineering". So my question is this; what do you do, when one doesn't think the code is complicated enough?

    Read the article

  • Inventory Consignment Flow

    - by ipohfly
    Not sure whether this is the right place to ask this question, but here goes.. Currently I have requirement to add support for consignment transaction in our inventory module. I have a very limited understanding of what consignment means in inventory, i.e. Customer get stocks/products from Seller without actually buying them, the product just resides in the Customer's inventory and it's still owned by the Seller. Only when the Customer actually buy the stocks then only will the ownership of the stock is transferred. The issue is i can't imagine how the data will be presented to both the Customer and the Seller. What i know is that i would need to deduct the stock from the Seller's inventory when the Customer raise a request to get the stock through consignment, but what about the 'ownership' of the stocks/products? Does that mean i would need to create another column in my table to state that for each inventory it is owned by who? Anywhere i can get information on how i should work out an inventory module like this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • If I am developing a hosted payments page, what should the infrastructure look like?

    - by marcamillion
    If I am not storing credit card info, do I have to be concerned with PCI-compliance? I will be using a payment processor with a bank in my country. Literally just taking the credit card info and passing it to the gateway and processor. I would love to get an idea of the various technologies I might need to consider from an software architectural point of view. What are the best practices in terms of accepting credit cards and reducing fraud risk on my end? I will be creating the app in Rails.

    Read the article

  • Include in service layer all the application's functions or only the reusable ones?

    - by BornToCode
    Background: I need to build a main application with some operations (CRUD and more) (-in winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (-in webforms). I understood that using service layer is the best approach here. If I understood correctly the service should be calling the function on the BL layer (correct me if I'm wrong) The dilemma: In my main winform UI - should I call the functions from the BL, or from the service? (please explain why) Should I create a service for every single function on the BL even if I need some of the functions only in one UI? for example - should I create services for all the CRUD operations, even though I need to re-use only update operation in the webform? YOUR HELP IS MUCH APPRECIATED

    Read the article

  • Could I be going crazy with Event Handlers? Am I going the "wrong way" with my design?

    - by sensae
    I guess I've decided that I really like event handlers. I may be suffering a bit from analysis paralysis, but I'm concerned about making my design unwieldy or running into some other unforeseen consequence to my design decisions. My game engine currently does basic sprite-based rendering with a panning overhead camera. My design looks a bit like this: SceneHandler Contains a list of classes that implement the SceneListener interface (currently only Sprites). Calls render() once per tick, and sends onCameraUpdate(); messages to SceneListeners. InputHandler Polls the input once per tick, and sends a simple "onKeyPressed" message to InputListeners. I have a Camera InputListener which holds a SceneHandler instance and triggers updateCamera(); events based on what the input is. AgentHandler Calls default actions on any Agents (AI) once per tick, and will check a stack for any new events that are registered, dispatching them to specific Agents as needed. So I have basic sprite objects that can move around a scene and use rudimentary steering behaviors to travel. I've gotten onto collision detection, and this is where I'm not sure the direction my design is going is good. Is it a good practice to have many, small event handlers? I imagine going the way I am that I'd have to implement some kind of CollisionHandler. Would I be better off with a more consolidated EntityHandler which handles AI, collision updates, and other entity interactions in one class? Or will I be fine just implementing many different event handling subsystems which pass messages to each other based on what kind of event it is? Should I write an EntityHandler which is simply responsible for coordinating all these sub event handlers? I realize in some cases, such as my InputHandler and SceneHandler, those are very specific types of events. A large portion of my game code won't care about input, and a large portion won't care about updates that happen purely in the rendering of the scene. Thus I feel my isolation of those systems is justified. However, I'm asking this question specifically approaching game logic type events.

    Read the article

  • Stop myself from over-complicating applications

    - by stuartmclark
    Recently I worked on a fairly large project involving C# and MVVM. This application had around 160 projects in the solutions each seprarated into their own layers. As I have been working on this application for almost a year, building it from scratch as part of a team, I am now coming off that project and onto smaller more trivial projects. As I was beginning to develop a small in-house tool I found myself trying to mimic the larger applications structure and layering but in the end I just had a simple application with several DLLs which I know I wouldn't have done if I had not worked on that larger application before. I am just wondering if there are any techniques I can utilise to stop myself from turning a "code-behind" style trivial application into a full blown MVVM application? Or should I continue developing as I am and try to keep the unnecessary fluff out of the project?

    Read the article

  • windows system (bootloader) partition accidently deleted during multiple installs

    - by S.Y.T.
    After experimenting with multiple variations of backtrack and xbmcbuntu variations of Ubuntu with dual boot successfully, my windows partition became unrecognizable to grub. I used my windows boot CD to try to correct the problem. However, I deleted all partitions except for the NFTS one that contains my old windows install. (And, merged all other ones into that in hopes of getting back to the windows boot loader and out of grub) Now, all I get is a grub command prompt when I try and boot the system (how??? - I thought I deleted grub) And, now the windows boot disc doesn't even recognize the install. I've tried TRK to try and resolve the problem. Though I must admit ignorance in correctly using this utility. I've searched for other answers to this problem. Any help would be much appreciated. S.Y.

    Read the article

  • What do you do when one think the code isn't complicated enough?

    - by Chris
    After six months of development on a project, our stakeholders have had a "gut check" and have decided that the path that we've been walking (a custom designed application framework and data access layer) is holding us (the developers) back from quickly developing the features they would like to see. After several days of debate management and the development team have decided to scrap the current incarnation and start over using ASP.net MVC, with Entity Framework as the bases of the a 'quick and dirty', lets just get it done project. In days following, our senior developer who has never worked with MVC or Entity Framework has finally gotten into a sample project and done some work. His take on ASP.net MVC, "this is not software engineering". So my question is this; what do you do, when one doesn't think the code is complicated enough?

    Read the article

  • How to setup users for desktop app with SQL Azure as backend?

    - by Manuel
    I'm considering SQL Azure as DB for a new application I'm developing. The reason I want to go with Azure is because I don't want to have to maintain yet another database(s) and I want my users to be able to access the data from anywhere. The problem is that I'm not clear regarding how to users will connect. The application is a basic CRUD type of windows app. I've read that you need to add your IP to SQL Azure's firewall to connect to it, but I don't know if it's only for administration purposes only. Can anyone clarify if anyone (anywhere) can access the data with the proper credentials? Which of the following scenarios would work best (if at all)? A) Add each user to SQL Azure and have the app connect directly to Azure as if it was connecting to SQL Server B) Add an anonymous user SQL Azure and pass the real user's password/hash with every call so the Azure database can service the requests accordingly. C) Put a WCF service in between so that it handles the authentication stuff. The service will only serve the appropriate information to the user given his/her authentication and SQL Azure would be open to the service exclusively. D) - ideas are welcomed - This is confusing because all Azure examples I see are for websites. I have a hard time believing SQL Azure wouldn't handle the case of desktop apps connecting to it. So what's the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Several classes need to access the same data, where should the data be declared?

    - by Juicy
    I have a basic 2D tower defense game in C++. Each map is a separate class which inherits from GameState. The map delegates the logic and drawing code to each object in the game and sets data such as the map path. In pseudo-code the logic section might look something like this: update(): for each creep in creeps: creep.update() for each tower in towers: tower.update() for each missile in missiles: missile.update() The objects (creeps, towers and missiles) are stored in vector-of-pointers. The towers must have access to the vector-of-creeps and the vector-of-missiles to create new missiles and identify targets. The question is: where do I declare the vectors? Should they be members of the Map class, and passed as arguments to the tower.update() function? Or declared globally? Or are there other solutions I'm missing entirely?

    Read the article

  • Question about modeling with MVC (the pattern, not the MS stuff / non web)

    - by paul
    I'm working on an application in which I'm looking to employ the MVC pattern, but I've come up against a design decision point I could use some help with. My application is going to deal with the design of state-machines. Currently the MVC model holds information about the machine's states, inputs, outputs, etc. The view is going to show a diagram for the machine, graphically allowing the user to add new states, establish transitions, and put the states in a pleasing arrangement, among other things. I would like to store part of the diagram's state (e.g. the x and y state positions) when the machine information is stored for later retrieval, and am wondering how best to go about structuring the model(s?) for this. It seems like this UI information is more closely related to the view than to the state-machine model, so I was thinking that a secondary model might be in order, but I am reluctant to pursue this route because of the added complexity. Adding this information to the current model doesn't seem the right way to go about it either. This is the my first time using the MVC pattern so I'm still figuring things out. Any input would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What's the right/standard way of achieving separation of concerns?

    - by Ghanima
    Some background: I want to start developing games, and taking some of the advice given in this site, I've started with something simple and familiar, such as pong, tetris, etc. I want to take as much time as needed to make sure that I have the basics right before moving on to something bigger. I have medium programming experience but I realize making games is a different thing. I find myself wondering many things like should this be in a separate class? Should this module handle this stuff or is it better to let other modules have that kind of functionality? For example, the bouncing of a ball in pong, right now is handled in the ball module, but maybe it's better that some other module did it. Right now I have different modules: one for the graphics, one for the game logic, and others for the objects (depending on the kind of movement required, not all the objects are alike). I know I am asking a lot, any tips you have will be very much appreciated. Short question: What's the right or standard way of separating the modules? What have you found most effective? Is it enough to just keep the drawing (graphics) and the logic separate? Is it necessary to have a lot of classes? (for example for the objects in the game, to handle the movement, etc)

    Read the article

  • Layers - Logical seperation vs physical

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    Some programmers recommend logical seperation of layers over physical. For example, given a DL, this means we create a DL namespace not a DL assembly. Benefits include: faster compilation time simpler deployment Faster startup time for your program Less assemblies to reference Im on a small team of 5 devs. We have over 50 assemblies to maintain. IMO this ratio is far from ideal. I prefer an extreme programming approach. Where if 100 assemblies are easier to maintain than 10,000...then 1 assembly must be easier than 100. Given technical limits, we should strive for < 5 assemblies. New assemblies are created out of technical need not layer requirements. Developers are worried for a few reasons. A. People like to work in their own environment so they dont step on eachothers toes. B. Microsoft tends to create new assemblies. E.G. Asp.net has its own DLL, so does winforms. Etc. C. Devs view this drive for a common assembly as a threat. Some team members Have a tendency to change the common layer without regard for how it will impact dependencies. My personal view: I view A. as silos, aka cowboy programming and suggest we implement branching to create isolation. C. First, that is a human problem and we shouldnt create technical work arounds for human behavior. Second, my goal is not to put everything in common. Rather, I want partitions to be made in namespaces not assemblies. Having a shared assembly doesnt make everything common. I want the community to chime in and tell me if Ive gone off my rocker. Is a drive for a single assembly or my viewpoint illogical or otherwise a bad idea?

    Read the article

  • Is there such thing like a "refactoring/maintainability group" role in software companies?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I work in a company that does embedded software development, other groups focus in the core development of different products' software and my department (which is in another geographical location) which is located at the factory has to deal with software development as well, but across all products, so that we can also fix things quicker when the lines go down due to software problems with the product. In other words, we are generalists while other groups specialize on each product. Thing is, it is kind of hard to get involved in core development when you are distributed geographically (well, I know it really isn't that hard, but there might be unintended cultural/political barriers when it comes to the discipline of collaborating remotely). So I figured that, since we are currently just putting fires out and somewhat being idle/sub-utilized (even though we are a new department, or maybe that is the reason), I thought that a good role for us could be detecting areas of opportunity of refactoring and rearchitecting code and all other implementations that might have to do with stewarding maintainability and modularity. Other groups aren't focused on this because they don't have the time and they have aggressive deadlines, which damage the quality of the code (eternal story of software projects) The thing is that I want my group/department to be recognized by management and other groups with this role officially, and I'm having trouble to come up with a good definition/identity of our group for this matter. So my question is: is this role something that already exists?, or am I the first one to make something like this up?

    Read the article

  • Ruby Installation System similar to NSIS (Nullsoft Scriptable Install System), feasibility?

    - by Chris Valentine
    I'm learning (relearning) how to use NSIS as I have not touched it in a bit. I also have recently become familiar with the Ruby language and find it very pleasing and actually a bit fun. And upon reading about the history of Rake I had a thought. What are the pros/cons of someone making (or migrating, or something) an installation system similar to NSIS in Ruby. It seems the learning curve would be far easier (NSIS seems so low level) and probably get the same job done in far less scripting. NSIS seems very outdated. Seems it would tie into things like Rake easier and Ocra and make Ruby distribution simpler for applications too. Maybe even give me a project to work on. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • How is it possible to write the compiler of a programming language with that language itself [closed]

    - by tugberk
    Possible Duplicate: How could the first C++ compiler be written in C++? You probably heard that Microsoft released a new language called TypeScript which is a the typed superset of JavaScript. The most interesting thing that makes me wonder is the fact that its compiler writen in TypeScript itself. Call me ignorant but I really couldn't figure out in my head how that is possible. This is just like chicken and egg problem in my head because there is no compiler to compile TypeScript's compiler in the first place. How is it possible to write a compiler of the compiler of a programming language with that language?

    Read the article

  • When to unload graphics object from main memory?

    - by piotrek
    I writing my resource mangaer, and I consider about how it can work for graphics objects (like textures, meshes). I think about this : I want to load texture (in pseudocode): Texture t = resMgr.GetTex("image.png"); and GetTex make something like this: load texture from disk to main memory create texture object (load it to gpu memory) unload texture from main memory I consider about 3 step, does game engines that you know unload meshes/textures after load them into gpu memory ?

    Read the article

  • Motivation for service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such case. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - well, why not just import the BL.dll (and the DAL.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dll files, it might not be so 'neat', but is the all purpose of the service layer to prevent this? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

    Read the article

  • How should game objects be aware of each other?

    - by Jefffrey
    I find it hard to find a way to organize game objects so that they are polymorphic but at the same time not polymorphic. Here's an example: assuming that we want all our objects to update() and draw(). In order to do that we need to define a base class GameObject which have those two virtual pure methods and let polymorphism kicks in: class World { private: std::vector<GameObject*> objects; public: // ... update() { for (auto& o : objects) o->update(); for (auto& o : objects) o->draw(window); } }; The update method is supposed to take care of whatever state the specific class object needs to update. The fact is that each objects needs to know about the world around them. For example: A mine needs to know if someone is colliding with it A soldier should know if another team's soldier is in proximity A zombie should know where the closest brain, within a radius, is For passive interactions (like the first one) I was thinking that the collision detection could delegate what to do in specific cases of collisions to the object itself with a on_collide(GameObject*). Most of the the other informations (like the other two examples) could just be queried by the game world passed to the update method. Now the world does not distinguish objects based on their type (it stores all object in a single polymorphic container), so what in fact it will return with an ideal world.entities_in(center, radius) is a container of GameObject*. But of course the soldier does not want to attack other soldiers from his team and a zombie doesn't case about other zombies. So we need to distinguish the behavior. A solution could be the following: void TeamASoldier::update(const World& world) { auto list = world.entities_in(position, eye_sight); for (const auto& e : list) if (auto enemy = dynamic_cast<TeamBSoldier*>(e)) // shoot towards enemy } void Zombie::update(const World& world) { auto list = world.entities_in(position, eye_sight); for (const auto& e : list) if (auto enemy = dynamic_cast<Human*>(e)) // go and eat brain } but of course the number of dynamic_cast<> per frame could be horribly high, and we all know how slow dynamic_cast can be. The same problem also applies to the on_collide(GameObject*) delegate that we discussed earlier. So what it the ideal way to organize the code so that objects can be aware of other objects and be able to ignore them or take actions based on their type?

    Read the article

  • C++ Game Engine Book/Tutorial/Anything recent?

    - by TheNoob
    Before I get flamed, please understand that I have been looking for a while now. Yes, I have found a good amount of game engine tutorials...except filled with errors, out of date syntax, missing crucial information, and so on. Is there anywhere with a recent tutorial, or a book, anything at all? I'm not asking for an opinion in graphics API's, just a point in the right direction to get started on game engine development. I just want to make it clear, I have googled/stacked like crazy. Any help appreciated. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Users can benefit from Session Tracking

    I use to work for a large Dental Plan marketing website a few years ago and they had a large customer-driven website that sold Dental Plans to consumers. Their website started tracking users as soon as they hit their web servers, and then they logged everything they could about the user. There are a lot of benefits for using session tracking for both the user and the website. Users can benefit from session tracking due to the fact that a website can retain pertaining information for the user so that they do not have to re-enter the same information repeatedly. In addition, websites can hold specific items in a cart for each user so that they can pay for all of their  items at once when they are ready to complete their purchases. Websites can also benefit from session tracking because they can determine where a specific user came from and which advertising partner gave them a sale. This information is very useful when deciding on where to spend an advertising budget. There is only one real disadvantage when it comes to session tracking, Users can not really control what is actually tracked by a website. Yes, they can disable cookies and this will help, but that means that no tracking can be done at all. Most sites require users to have cookies enabled in order for users to make purchases or login to their accounts.

    Read the article

  • Handling (many) multiple projects in Git in an enterprise environment

    - by Michael K
    One of the advantages of older version control systems such as CVS and SVN in enterprise development is that anyone can connect to source control and see all the projects that the company has. This can make it easier to get a high level view of what kid of development is happening outside your sprint and also keeps everything in one place and easy to find. However, distributed version control systems (Git, specifically) use the repository as their base unit. They work best with one project (or several closely related projects) per repository. This makes repository management more difficult in most enterprise environments where it is not unusual to have more than 25-50 projects to support. As far as I have been able to determine, you have to keep a list somewhere else of all the repos you have. There is software available, like GitHub, that help, but that still is an extra step beyond a single connection string and listing the contents of the repository. What is the best way to deal with the complexity of multiple repositories?

    Read the article

  • Combining a content management system with ASP.NET

    - by Ek0nomik
    I am going to be creating a site that seems like it requires a blend of a content management system (CMS) and some custom web development (which is done in ASP.NET MVC). I have plenty of web development experience to understand the ASP.NET MVC side of the fence, but, I don't have a lot of CMS knowledge aside from getting one stood up. Right now my biggest question is around integrating security from ASP.NET with the CMS. I currently have an ASP.NET MVC site that handles the authentication for multiple production sites and creates an authentication cookie under our domain (*.example.com). The page acts like a single sign on page since the cookie is a wildcard and can be used in any other applications of the same domain. I'd really like to avoid having users put in their credentials twice. Is there a CMS that will play well with the ASP.NET Forms Authentication given how I have these existing applications structured? As an aside, right now I am leaning towards Drupal, but, that isn't finalized.

    Read the article

  • Motivation for a service layer (instead of just copying dlls)?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm creating an application which has 2 different UIs so I'm making it with a service layer which I understood is appropriate for such scenario. However I found myself just creating web methods for every single method I have in the BL layer, so the services basically built from methods that looks like this: return customers_bl.Get_Customer_Prices(customer_id); I understood that a main point of the service layer is to prevent duplication of code so I asked myself - why not just import the BL.DLL (and the dal.dll) to the other UI, and whenever making a change re-copy the dlls, it might not be so 'neat', but still less hassle than one more layer? {I know something is wrong in my approach, I'm probably missing the importance of service layer, I'd like to get more motivation to create another layer, especially because as it is I found that many of my BL functions ALREADY looks like: return customers_dal.Get_Customer_Prices(cust_id) which led me to ask: was it really necessary to create the BL just because on several functions I actually have LOGIC inside the BL?} so I'm looking for more motivation to creating ONE MORE layer, I'm sure it's not just to make it more convenient that I won't have to re-copy the dlls on changes? Am I grasping it wrong? Any simple guidelines on how to design service layer (corresponding to all the BL layer functions or not? any simple example?) any enlightenment on the subject?

    Read the article

  • Is it dangerous for me to give some of my Model classes Control-like methods?

    - by Pureferret
    In my personal project I have tried to stick to MVC, but I've also been made aware that sticking to MVC too tightly can be a bad thing as it makes writing awkward and forces the flow of the program in odd ways (i.e. some simple functions can be performed by something that normally wouldn't, and avoid MVC related overheads). So I'm beginning to feel justified in this compromise: I have some 'manager programs' that 'own' data and have some way to manipulate it, as such I think they'd count as both part of the model, and part of the control, and to me this feels more natural than keepingthem separate. For instance: One of my Managers is the PlayerCharacterManager that has these methods: void buySkill(PlayerCharacter playerCharacter, Skill skill); void changeName(); void changeRole(); void restatCharacter(); void addCharacterToGame(); void createNewCharacter(); PlayerCharacter getPlayerCharacter(); List<PlayerCharacter> getPlayersCharacter(Player player); List<PlayerCharacter> getAllCharacters(); I hope the mothod names are transparent enough that they don't all need explaining. I've called it a manager because it will help manage all of the PlayerCharacter 'model' objects the code creates, and create and keep a map of these. I may also get it to store other information in the future. I plan to have another two similar classes for this sort of control, but I will orchestrate when and how this happens, and what to do with the returned data via a pure controller class. This splitting up control between informed managers and the controller, as opposed to operating just through a controller seems like it will simplify my code and make it flow more. My question is, is this a dangerous choice, in terms of making the code harder to follow/test/fix? Is this somethign established as good or bad or neutral? I oculdn't find anything similar except the idea of Actors but that's not quite why I'm trying to do. Edit: Perhaps an example is needed; I'm using the Controller to update the view and access the data, so when I click the 'Add new character to a player button' it'll call methods in the controller that then go and tell the PlayerCharacterManager class to create a new character instance, it'll call the PlayerManager class to add that new character to the player-character map, and then it'll add this information to the database, and tell the view to update any GUIs effected. That is the sort of 'control sequence' I'm hoping to create with these manager classes.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >