Search Results

Search found 23667 results on 947 pages for 'level design'.

Page 156/947 | < Previous Page | 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163  | Next Page >

  • Preferred way for dealing with customer-defined data in enterprise application

    - by Axarydax
    Let's say that we have a small enterprise web (intranet) application for managing data for car dealers. It has screens for managing customers, inventory, orders, warranties and workshops. This application is installed at 10 customer sites for different car dealers. First version of this application was created without any way to provide for customer-specific data. For example, if dealer A wanted to be able to attach a photo to a customer, dealer B wanted to add e-mail contact to each workshop, and dealer C wanted to attach multiple PDF reports to a warranty, each and every feature like this was added to the application, so all of the customers received everything on new update. However, this will inevitably lead to conflicts as the number of customers grow as their usage patterns are unique, and if, for instance, a specific dealer requested to have an ability to attach (for some reason) a color of inventory item (and be able to search by this color) as a required item, others really wouldn't need this feature, and definitely will not want it to be a required item. Or, one dealer would like to manage e-mail contacts for their employees on a separate screen of the application. I imagine that a solution for this is to use a kind of plugin system, where we would have a core of the application that provides for standard features like customers, inventory, etc, and all of the customer's installed plugins. There would be different kinds of plugins - standalone screens like e-mail contacts for employees, with their own logic, and customer plugin which would extend or decorate inventory items (like photo or color). Inventory (customer,order,...) plugins would require to have installation procedure, hooks for plugging into the item editor, item displayer, item filtering for searching, backup hook and such. Is this the right way to solve this problem?

    Read the article

  • How do you plan your asynchronous code?

    - by NullOrEmpty
    I created a library that is a invoker for a web service somewhere else. The library exposes asynchronous methods, since web service calls are a good candidate for that matter. At the beginning everything was just fine, I had methods with easy to understand operations in a CRUD fashion, since the library is a kind of repository. But then business logic started to become complex, and some of the procedures involves the chaining of many of these asynchronous operations, sometimes with different paths depending on the result value, etc.. etc.. Suddenly, everything is very messy, to stop the execution in a break point it is not very helpful, to find out what is going on or where in the process timeline have you stopped become a pain... Development becomes less quick, less agile, and to catch those bugs that happens once in a 1000 times becomes a hell. From the technical point, a repository that exposes asynchronous methods looked like a good idea, because some persistence layers could have delays, and you can use the async approach to do the most of your hardware. But from the functional point of view, things became very complex, and considering those procedures where a dozen of different calls were needed... I don't know the real value of the improvement. After read about TPL for a while, it looked like a good idea for managing tasks, but in the moment you have to combine them and start to reuse existing functionality, things become very messy. I have had a good experience using it for very concrete scenarios, but bad experience using them broadly. How do you work asynchronously? Do you use it always? Or just for long running processes? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Passing functions into other functions as parameters, bad practice?

    - by BlueHat
    We've been in the process of changing how our AS3 application talks to our back end and we're in the process of implementing a REST system to replace our old one. Sadly the developer who started the work is now on long term sick leave and it's been handed over to me. I've been working with it for the past week or so now and I understand the system, but there's one thing that's been worrying me. There seems to be a lot of passing of functions into functions. For example our class that makes the call to our servers takes in a function that it will then call and pass an object to when the process is complete and errors have been handled etc. It's giving me that "bad feeling" where I feel like it's horrible practice and I can think of some reasons why but I want some confirmation before I propose a re-work to system. I was wondering if anyone had any experience with this possible problem?

    Read the article

  • How should UI layer pass user input to BL layer?

    - by BornToCode
    I'm building an n-tier application, I have UI, BL, DAL & Entities (built from POCO) projects. (All projects have a reference to the Entities). My question is - how should I pass user input from the UI to the BL, as a bunch of strings passed to the BL method and the BL will build the object from the parameters, or should I build the objects inside the UI submit_function and send objects as parameters? EDIT: I wrote n-tier application, but what I actually meant was just layers.

    Read the article

  • Are null references really a bad thing?

    - by Tim Goodman
    I've heard it said that the inclusion of null references in programming languages is the "billion dollar mistake". But why? Sure, they can cause NullReferenceExceptions, but so what? Any element of the language can be a source of errors if used improperly. And what's the alternative? I suppose instead of saying this: Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman"); // returns null if not found if (c != null) { Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } You could say this: if (Customer.ExistsWithLastName("Goodman")) { Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman") // throws error if not found Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } But how is that better? Either way, if you forget to check that the customer exists, you get an exception. I suppose that a CustomerNotFoundException is a bit easier to debug than a NullReferenceException by virtue of being more descriptive. Is that all there is to it?

    Read the article

  • Designing a user-defined list to be stored in a relational database - Should I include user index?

    - by Zaemz
    By index, I mean, as the user creates the list, each item receives an integer index for its place in that particular list. Since there will be a table of ListItems, I'd prefer to avoid using the name "Index" for the field. Then I was thinking - should I even include the list index in the database? I figured I would because the list would be created in the same fashion every time, then. Or I could order the list for the user based on its actual primary key, since the list items are created in succession anyway... What should I do?

    Read the article

  • Should I force users to update an application?

    - by Brian Green
    I'm writing an application for a medium sized company that will be used by about 90% of our employees and our clients. In planning for the future we decided to add functionality that will verify that the version of the program that is running is a version that we still support. Currently the application will forcequit if the version is not among our supported versions. Here is my concern. Hypothetically, in version 2.0.0.1 method "A" crashes and burns in glorious fashion and method "B" works just fine. We release 2.0.0.2 to fix method A and deprecate version 0.1. Now if someone is running 0.1 to use method B they will be forced to update to fix something that isn't an issue for them right now. My question is, will the time saved not troubleshooting old, unsupported versions outweigh the cost in usability?

    Read the article

  • How to control messages to the same port from different emitters?

    - by Alex In Paris
    Scene: A company has many factories X, each emits a message to the same receive port in a Biztalk server Y; if all messages are processed without much delay, each will trigger an outgoing message to another system Z. Problem: Sometimes a factory loses its connection for a half-day or more and, when the connection is reestablished, thousands of messages get emitted. Now, the messages still get processed well by Y (Biztalk can easily handle the load) but system Z can't handle the flood and may lock up and severely delay the processing of all other messages from the other X. What is the solution? Creating multiple receive locations that permits us to pause one X or another would lose us information if the factory isn't smart enough to know whether the message was received or not. What is the basic pattern to apply in Biztalk for this problem? Would some throttling parameters help to limit the flow from any one X? Or are their techniques on the end part of Y which I should use instead ? I would prefer this last one since I can be confident that the message box will remember any failures, which could then be resumed.

    Read the article

  • Too complex/too many objects?

    - by Mike Fairhurst
    I know that this will be a difficult question to answer without context, but hopefully there are at least some good guidelines to share on this. The questions are at the bottom if you want to skip the details. Most are about OOP in general. Begin context. I am a jr dev on a PHP application, and in general the devs I work with consider themselves to use many more OO concepts than most PHP devs. Still, in my research on clean code I have read about so many ways of using OO features to make code flexible, powerful, expressive, testable, etc. that is just plain not in use here. The current strongly OO API that I've proposed is being called too complex, even though it is trivial to implement. The problem I'm solving is that our permission checks are done via a message object (my API, they wanted to use arrays of constants) and the message object does not hold the validation object accountable for checking all provided data. Metaphorically, if your perm containing 'allowable' and 'rare but disallowed' is sent into a validator, the validator may not know to look for 'rare but disallowed', but approve 'allowable', which will actually approve the whole perm check. We have like 11 validators, too many to easily track at such minute detail. So I proposed an AtomicPermission class. To fix the previous example, the perm would instead contain two atomic permissions, one wrapping 'allowable' and the other wrapping 'rare but disallowed'. Where previously the validator would say 'the check is OK because it contains allowable,' now it would instead say '"allowable" is ok', at which point the check ends...and the check fails, because 'rare but disallowed' was not specifically okay-ed. The implementation is just 4 trivial objects, and rewriting a 10 line function into a 15 line function. abstract class PermissionAtom { public function allow(); // maybe deny() as well public function wasAllowed(); } class PermissionField extends PermissionAtom { public function getName(); public function getValue(); } class PermissionIdentifier extends PermissionAtom { public function getIdentifier(); } class PermissionAction extends PermissionAtom { public function getType(); } They say that this is 'not going to get us anything important' and it is 'too complex' and 'will be difficult for new developers to pick up.' I respectfully disagree, and there I end my context to begin the broader questions. So the question is about my OOP, are there any guidelines I should know: is this too complicated/too much OOP? Not that I expect to get more than 'it depends, I'd have to see if...' when is OO abstraction too much? when is OO abstraction too little? how can I determine when I am overthinking a problem vs fixing one? how can I determine when I am adding bad code to a bad project? how can I pitch these APIs? I feel the other devs would just rather say 'its too complicated' than ask 'can you explain it?' whenever I suggest a new class.

    Read the article

  • What kind of graphics would you like better? [ pictures ] [closed]

    - by Roger Travis
    I am looking forward to make an android game, something angrybirds style. I've already made my own engine and now have to decide what kind of graphics should I make. It could be either realistic, like that or a doodle-style like this Right now the first one looks more appealing to me... on the other hand, doodle-graphics are very easy to draw and their transparency doesn't seem to slow down the engine much. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • Is there an industry standard for systems registered user permissions in terms of database model?

    - by EASI
    I developed many applications with registered user access for my enterprise clients. In many years I have changed my way of doing it, specially because I used many programming languages and database types along time. Some of them not very simple as view, create and/or edit permissions for each module in the application, or light as access or can't access certain module. But now that I am developing a very extensive application with many modules and many kinds of users to access them, I was wondering if there is an standard model for doing it, because I already see that's the simple or the light way won't be enough.

    Read the article

  • Summary of usage policies for website integration of various social media networks?

    - by Dallas
    To cut to the chase... I look at Twitter's usage policy and see limitations on what can and can't be done with their logo. I also see examples of websites that use icons that have been integrated with the look and feel of their own site. Given Twitter's policy, for example, it would appear that legal conversations/agreements would need to take place to do this, especially on a commercial site. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to have a plain text button that simply has the word "Tweet" on it, that has the same functionality. My question is if anyone can provide online (or other) references that attempt to summarize what can and can't be done when integrating various social networks into your own work? The answer I will mark as the correct one will be the one which provides the best resource(s) giving the best summaries of what can and can't be done with specific logos/icons, with a secondary factor being that a variety of social networking sites are addressed in your answer. Before people point to specific questions, I am looking for a well-rounded approach that considers a breadth of networks and considerations. Background: I would like to incorporate social media icons and functionality, but would like to consider what type of modifications can be done without needing to involve lawyers. For example, can I bring in a standard Facebook logo, but incorporate my site color into the logo? Would the answer differ if I maintained their color, but add in a few pixels of another color to transition? I am not saying I want to do this, but rather using it as an example.

    Read the article

  • Checking timeouts made more readable

    - by Markus
    I have several situations where I need to control timeouts in a technical application. Either in a loop or as a simple check. Of course – handling this is really easy, but none of these is looking cute. To clarify, here is some C# (Pseudo) code: private DateTime girlWentIntoBathroom; girlWentIntoBathroom = DateTime.Now; do { // do something } while (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now); or if (girlWentIntoBathroom.AddSeconds(10) > DateTime.Now) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); Now I was inspired by something a saw in Ruby on StackOverflow: Now I’m wondering if this construct can be made more readable using extension methods. My goal is something that can be read like “If girlWentIntoBathroom is more than 10 seconds ago” 1st attempt if (girlWentIntoBathroom > (10).Seconds().Ago()) MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); else MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); So I wrote an extension for integer that converts the integer into a TimeSpan public static TimeSpan Seconds(this int amount) { return new TimeSpan(0, 0, amount); } After that, I wrote an extension for TimeSpan like this: public static DateTime Ago(this TimeSpan diff) { return DateTime.Now.Add(-diff); } This works fine so far, but has a great disadvantage. The logic is inverted! Since girlWentIntoBathroom is a timestamp in the past, the right side of the equation needs to count backwards: impossible. Just inverting the equation is no solution, because it will invert the read sentence as well. 2nd attempt So I tried something new: if (girlWentIntoBathroom.IsMoreThan(10).SecondsAgo()) MessageBox.Show("Knock louder"); else MessageBox.Show("Wait a little longer"); IsMoreThan() needs to transport the past timestamp as well as the span for the extension SecondsAgo(). It could be: public static DateWithIntegerSpan IsMoreThan(this DateTime baseTime, int span) { return new DateWithIntegerSpan() { Date = baseTime, Span = span }; } Where DateWithIntegerSpan is simply: public class DateWithIntegerSpan { public DateTime Date {get; set;} public int Span { get; set; } } And SecondsAgo() is public static bool SecondsAgo(this DateWithIntegerSpan dateAndSpan) { return dateAndSpan.Date.Add(new TimeSpan(0, 0, dateAndSpan.Span)) < DateTime.Now; } Using this approach, the English sentence matches the expected behavior. But the disadvantage is, that I need a helping class (DateWithIntegerSpan). Has anyone an idea to make checking timeouts look more cute and closer to a readable sentence? Am I a little too insane thinking about something minor like this?

    Read the article

  • How do I break down and plan a personal programming project?

    - by Pureferret
    I've just started a programming job where I'm applying my 'How to code' knowledge to what I'm being taught of 'How to Program' (They are different!). As part of this, I've been taught how to capture requirements from clients before starting a new project. But... How do I do this for a nebulous personal project? I say nebulous, as I often find halfway through programming something, I want to expand what my program will do, or alter the result. Eventually, I'm tangled in code and have to restart. This can be frustrating and off-putting. Conversely, when given a fixed task and fixed requirements, it's much easier to dig in and get it done. At work I might be told "Today/This week you need to add XYZ to program 1" That is easy to do. At home (for fun) I want to make, say, a program that creates arbitrary lists. It's a very generic task. How do I start with that? I don't need it to do anything, but I want it to do something. So how do I plan a personal programming project? Related: What to plan before starting development on a project?

    Read the article

  • What most games would benefit from having

    - by Phil
    I think I've seen "questions" like this on stackoverflow but sorry if I'm overstepping any bounds. Inspired by my recent question and all the nice answers (Checklist for finished game?) I think every gamedev out there has something he/she thinks that almost every game should have. That knowledge is welcome here! So this is probably going to be an inspirational subjective list of some sorts and the point is that anyone reading this question will see a point or two that they've overlooked in their own development and might benefit from adding. I think a good example might be: "some sort of manual or help section. Of course it should be proportional to how advanced the game is. Some users won't need it and won't go looking for it but the other ones that do will become very frustrated if they can't remember how to do something specific that should be in the manual". A bad example might be "good gameplay". Of course every game benefits from this but the answer is not very helpful.

    Read the article

  • Should I make up my own HTTP status codes? (a la Twitter 420: Enhance Your Calm)

    - by Max Bucknell
    I'm currently implementing an HTTP API, my first ever. I've been spending a lot of time looking at the Wikipedia page for HTTP status codes, because I'm determined to implement the right codes for the right situations. Listed on that page is a code with number 420, which is a custom code that Twitter used to use for rate limiting. There is already a code for rate limiting, though. It's 429. This led me to wonder why they would set a custom one, when there is already a use case. Is that just being cute? And if so, then which circumstances would make it acceptable to return a different status code, and what, if any problems may clients have with it? I read somewhere that Mozilla doesn't implement the joke 418: I’m a teapot response, which makes me think that clients choose which status codes they implement. If that's true, then I can imagine Twitter's funny little enhance your calm code being problematic. Unless I'm mistaken, and we can appropriate any code number to mean whatever we like, and that only convention dictates that 404 means not found, and 429 means take it easy.

    Read the article

  • Making a class pseudo-immutable by setting a flag

    - by scott_fakename
    I have a java project that involves building some pretty complex objects. There are quite a lot (dozens) of different ones and some of them have a HUGE number of parameters. They also need to be immutable. So I was thinking the builder pattern would work, but it ends up require a lot of boilerplate. Another potential solution I thought of was to make a mutable class, but give it a "frozen" flag, a-la ruby. Here is a simple example: public class EqualRule extends Rule { private boolean frozen; private int target; public EqualRule() { frozen = false; } public void setTarget(int i) { if (frozen) throw new IllegalStateException( "Can't change frozen rule."); target = i; } public int getTarget() { return target; } public void freeze() { frozen = true; } @Override public boolean checkRule(int i) { return (target == i); } } and "Rule" is just an abstract class that has an abstract "checkRule" method. This cuts way down on the number of objects I need to write, while also giving me an object that becomes immutable for all intents and purposes. This kind of act like the object was its own Builder... But not quite. I'm not too excited, however, about having an immutable being disguised as a bean however. So I had two questions: 1. Before I go too far down this path, are there any huge problems that anyone sees right off the bat? For what it's worth, it is planned that this behavior will be well documented... 2. If so, is there a better solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • When decomposing a large function, how can I avoid the complexity from the extra subfunctions?

    - by missingno
    Say I have a large function like the following: function do_lots_of_stuff(){ { //subpart 1 ... } ... { //subpart N ... } } a common pattern is to decompose it into subfunctions function do_lots_of_stuff(){ subpart_1(...) subpart_2(...) ... subpart_N(...) } I usually find that decomposition has two main advantages: The decomposed function becomes much smaller. This can help people read it without getting lost in the details. Parameters have to be explicitly passed to the underlying subfunctions, instead of being implicitly available by just being in scope. This can help readability and modularity in some situations. However, I also find that decomposition has some disadvantages: There are no guarantees that the subfunctions "belong" to do_lots_of_stuff so there is nothing stopping someone from accidentally calling them from a wrong place. A module's complexity grows quadratically with the number of functions we add to it. (There are more possible ways for things to call each other) Therefore: Are there useful convention or coding styles that help me balance the pros and cons of function decomposition or should I just use an editor with code folding and call it a day? EDIT: This problem also applies to functional code (although in a less pressing manner). For example, in a functional setting we would have the subparts be returning values that are combined in the end and the decomposition problem of having lots of subfunctions being able to use each other is still present. We can't always assume that the problem domain will be able to be modeled on just some small simple types with just a few highly orthogonal functions. There will always be complicated algorithms or long lists of business rules that we still want to correctly be able to deal with. function do_lots_of_stuff(){ p1 = subpart_1() p2 = subpart_2() pN = subpart_N() return assembleStuff(p1, p2, ..., pN) }

    Read the article

  • 3D mobile game development [on hold]

    - by SCM
    I am not a developer or programmer and, I am planning an educative project that will involve having students to develop a cross-platform, 3D mobile game, similar to the SimCity concept. I need to write a project requirement and I'd like to pick someone's brain to understand what's involved in developing such a project: -Is it realistic to have one or two students to do it? and along their other modules at uni? - How much time can it take to develop from scratch? - what are the different skills required? Thank you All SCM

    Read the article

  • Should i continue my self-taught coding practice or learn how to do coding professionally?

    - by G1i1ch
    Lately I've been getting professional work, hanging out with other programmers, and making friends in the industry. The only thing is I'm 100% self-taught. It's caused my style to extremely deviate from the style of those that are properly trained. It's the techniques and organization of my code that's different. It's a mixture of several things I do. I tend to blend several programming paradigms together. Like Functional and OO. I lean to the Functional side more than OO, but I see the use of OO when something would make more sense as an abstract entity. Like a game object. Next I also go the simple route when doing something. When in contrast, it seems like sometimes the code I see from professional programmers is complicated for the sake of it! I use lots of closures. And lastly, I'm not the best commenter. I find it easier just to read through my code than reading the comment. And most cases I just end up reading the code even if there are comments. Plus I've been told that, because of how simply I write my code, it's very easy to read it. I hear professionally trained programmers go on and on about things like unit tests. Something I've never used before so I haven't even the faintest idea of what they are or how they work. Lots and lots of underscores "_", which aren't really my taste. Most of the techniques I use are straight from me, or a few books I've read. Don't know anything about MVC, I've heard a lot about it though with things like backbone.js. I think it's a way to organize an application. It just confuses me though because by now I've made my own organizational structures. It's a bit of a pain. I can't use template applications at all when learning something new like with Ubuntu's Quickly. I have trouble understanding code that I can tell is from someone trained. Complete OO programming really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, yet that seems to be what EVERYONE else is strictly using. It's left me not that confident in the look of my code, or wondering whether I'll cause sparks when joining a company or maybe contributing to open source projects. In fact I'm rather scared of the fact that people will eventually be checking out my code. Is this just something normal any programmer goes through or should I really look to change up my techniques?

    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

  • More Tables or More Databases?

    - by BuckWoody
    I got an e-mail from someone that has an interesting situation. He has 15,000 customers, and he asks if he should have a database for their data per customer. Without a LOT more data it’s impossible to say, of course, but there are some general concepts to keep in mind. Whenever you’re segmenting data, it’s all about boundary choices. You have not only boundaries around how big the data will get, but things like how many objects (tables, stored procedures and so on) that will be involved, if there are any cross-sections of data (do they share location or product information) and – very important – what are the security requirements? From the answer to these types of questions, you now have the choice of making multiple tables in a single database, or using multiple databases. A database carries some overhead – it needs a certain amount of memory for locking and so on. But it has a very clean boundary – everything from objects to security can be kept apart. Having multiple users in the same database is possible as well, using things like a Schema. But keeping 15,000 schemas can be challenging as well. My recommendation in complex situations like this is similar to a post on decisions that I did earlier – I lay out the choices on a spreadsheet in rows, and then my requirements at the top in the columns. I  give each choice a number based on how well it meets each requirement. At the end, the highest number wins. And many times it’s a mix – perhaps this person could segment customers into larger regions or districts or products, in a database. Within that database might be multiple schemas for the customers. Of course, he needs to query across all customers, that becomes another requirement. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • Question about creating a sprite based 2-D Side Scroller with scaling/zooming

    - by Arthur
    I'm just wondering if anyone can offer any advice on how best to go about creating a 2-D game with zooming/scaling features akin to the early Samurai Showdown games. In this case it would be a side scroller a la Metal Slug, the zooming would come in as more enemy sprites entered the screen, or when facing a large sized boss. A feature that would be both cosmetic as well as functional to the game. I've done some reading and noticed a few suggestions that included drawing different sized sprites, a standard size and zoomed out size. Any thoughts? Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Implementing Command Pattern in Web Application

    - by KingOfHypocrites
    I'm looking to implement the command pattern in a web application (asp.net c#)... Since the commands come in text format from the client, what is the best way to translate the string to a command object? Should I use reflection? Currently I just assume the command that comes in matches the file name of a user control. This is a bit of a hack. Rather than have a select case statement that says if string = "Dashboard" then call Dashboard.Execute(), is there a pattern for working with commands that originate as strings?

    Read the article

  • Implenting ActiveRecord with inheritance?

    - by King
    I recently converted an old application that was using XML files as the data store to use SQL instead. To avoid a lot of changes I basically created ActiveRecord style classes that inherited from the original business objects. For example SomeClassRecord :SomeClass //ID Property //Save method I then used this new class in place of the other one, because of polymorphism I didn't need to change any methods that took SomeClass as a parameter. Would this be considered 'Bad'? What would be a better alternative?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163  | Next Page >