Search Results

Search found 3321 results on 133 pages for 'patterns'.

Page 29/133 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

• How would you model an objects representing different phases of an entity life cycle?

  - by Ophir Yoktan

  I believe the scenario is common mostly in business workflows - for example: loan management the process starts with a loan application, then there's the loan offer, the 'live' loan, and maybe also finished loans. all these objects are related, and share many fields all these objects have also many fields that are unique for each entity the variety of objects maybe large, and the transformation between the may not be linear (for example: a single loan application may end up as several loans of different types) How would you model this? some options: an entity for each type, each containing the relevant fields (possibly grouping related fields as sub entities) - leads to duplication of data. an entity for each object, but instead of duplicating data, each object has a reference to it's predecessor (the loan doesn't contain the loaner details, but a reference to the loan application) - this causes coupling between the object structure, and the way it was created. if we change the loan application, it shouldn't effect the structure of the loan entity. one large entity, with fields for the whole life cycle - this can create 'mega objects' with many fields. it also doesn't work well when there's a one to many or many to many relation between the phases.

  Read the article

• How to change the state of a singleton in runtime

  - by user34401

  Consider I am going to write a simple file based logger AppLogger to be used in my apps, ideally it should be a singleton so I can call it via public class AppLogger { public static String file = ".."; public void logToFile() { // Write to file } public static log(String s) { AppLogger.getInstance().logToFile(s); } } And to use it AppLogger::log("This is a log statement"); The problem is, what is the best time I should provide the value of file since it is a just a singleton? Or how to refactor the above code (or skip using singleton) so I can customize the log file path? (Assume I don't need to write to multiple at the same time) p.s. I know I can use library e.g. log4j, but consider it is just a design question, how to refactor the code above?

  Read the article

• Updating and organizing class diagrams in a growing C++ project

  - by vanna

  I am working on a C++ project that is getting bigger and bigger. I do a lot of UML so it is not really hard to explain my work to co-workers. Lately though I implemented a lot of new features and I gave up updating by hand my Dia UML diagrams. I once used the class diagram of Visual Studio, which is my IDE but didn't get clear results. I need to show my work on a regular basis and I would like to be as clear as possible. Is there any tool that could generate a sort of organized map of my work (namespaces, classes, interactions, etc.) ?

  Read the article

• Should Android and iPhone UI be different?

  - by Phonon

  I'm not completely new to developing apps, but I'm at a point where I'm trying to develop something and deploy it on several mobile platforms. To only concentrate on two major ones, suppose I'm developing an app for Android and iPhone and designing UI and the general user interaction architecture. Both platforms give guidelines as to how their UIs should work. For example, most iPhone apps have the Navigation Bar (the one that says Testing 1 and has a Back button) and an Icon Bar for navigating a program, while Android uses an Options Menu fetched via a Menu button and the "back" navigation is handled with the physical Back button on the device. I've seen many apps that try to force the same UI on every platform. For example, custom-building an iPhone style Icon Bar and putting it in their Android apps, but it just doesn't quite look right to me and it feels like it violates UI design guidelines somewhat. Are there any good design patters for implementing something sufficiently similar on both platforms, yet still platform-specific enough so that the user would not feel out of their comfort zone? What do people usually do in these situations?

  Read the article

• doing a full permutation search and replace on a string

  - by user73307

  I'm writing an app that does something like a custom number (licence) place generator tool where if I ask for the plate "robin" it will suggest I try: r0bin rob1n r0b1n Are there any published algorithms which can do this? It has to be able to handle replacing single letters with multiples, e.g. m with rn and vise-versa and not fall over if it replaces an i with an l then comes to check the l and replaces it back to an i. The list of what gets swapped with what is going to be user input but I'm not expecting a huge list, possibly 10 pairs at most. I'll be implementing this in Ruby or Python but I should be able to convert code from any other language.

  Read the article

• Best practice to collect information from child objects

  - by Markus

  I'm regularly seeing the following pattern: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) c.AddRequiredStuff(collection); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override void AddRequiredStuff(StuffCollection collection) { Stuff stuff; // ... collection.Add(stuff); } } Where I would use something like this, for better information hiding: public abstract class BaseItem { BaseItem[] children; // ... public void DoSomethingWithStuff() { StuffCollection collection = new StuffCollection(); foreach(child c : children) collection.AddRange(c.RequiredStuff()); // do something with the collection ... } public abstract StuffCollection RequiredStuff(); } public class ConcreteItem : BaseItem { // ... public override StuffCollection RequiredStuff() { StuffCollection stuffCollection; Stuff stuff; // ... stuffCollection.Add(stuff); return stuffCollection; } } What are pros and cons of each solution? For me, giving the implementation access to parent's information is some how disconcerting. On the other hand, initializing a new list, just to collect the items is a useless overhead ... What is the better design? How would it change, if DoSomethingWithStuff wouldn't be part of BaseItem but a third class? PS: there might be missing semicolons, or typos; sorry for that! The above code is not meant to be executed, but just for illustration.

  Read the article

• How do you proactively guard against errors of omission?

  - by Gabriel

  I'll preface this with I don't know if anyone else who's been programming as long as I have actually has this problem, but at the very least, the answer might help someone with less xp. I just stared at this code for 5 minutes, thinking I was losing my mind that it didn't work: var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> l = (s) => { for (int i = 0; ; i++) { var next = (s + i).TrimEnd('0'); if (!usedNames.Contains(next)) { return next; } } }; Finally I noticed I forgot to add the used name to the hash set. Similarly, I've spent minutes upon minutes over omitting context.SaveChanges(). I think I get so distracted by the details that I'm thinking about that some really small details become invisible to me - it's almost at the level of mental block. Are there tactics to prevent this? update: a side effect of asking this was fixing the error it would have for i 9 (Thanks!) var usedNames = new HashSet<string>(); Func<string, string> name = (s) => { string result = s; if(usedNames.Contains(s)) for (int i = 1; ; result = s + i++) if (!usedNames.Contains(result)) break; usedNames.Add(result); return result; };

  Read the article

• Avoiding null in a controller

  - by Kevin Burke

  I'm trying to work through how to write this code. def get(params): """ Fetch a user's details, or 404 """ user = User.fetch_by_id(params['id']) if not user: abort(404) # Render some template for the user... What's the best way to handle the case where the lookup fails? One principle says you should avoid returning null values from functions. These lead to mistakes and AttributeErrors etc. later on in the file. Another idea is to have fetch_by_id raise a ValueError or similar if no user exists with that id. However there's a general principle that you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow, either, which doesn't help much. What could be done better in this case?

  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

• Create many similar classes, or just one

  - by soandos

  The goal is to create an application that has objects that can represent some operations (add, subtract, etc). All of those objects will have common functions and members, and thus will either implement an interface or inherit from an abstract class (Which would be better practice, this will be in C# if that matters?). As far as I can see, there are two different ways of organizing all of these classes. I could create an addition class, a subtraction class, etc. This has the upside of being highly modular but the difference between classes is so minimal. I could create one class, and have a member that will say what type of operation is being represented. This means lots of switch statements, and losing some modularity, in addition to being harder to maintain. Which is is better practice? Is there a better way of doing that is not listed above? If it matters, the list of functions that should be supported is long.

  Read the article

• Structuring Access Control In Hierarchical Object Graph

  - by SB2055

  I have a Folder entity that can be Moderated by users. Folders can contain other folders. So I may have a structure like this: Folder 1 Folder 2 Folder 3 Folder 4 I have to decide how to implement Moderation for this entity. I've come up with two options: Option 1 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a moderator relationship between Folder 1 and User 1. No other relationships are added to the db. To determine if the user can moderate Folder 3, I check and see if User 1 is the moderator of any parent folders. This seems to alleviate some of the complexity of handling updates / moved entities / additions under Folder 1 after the relationship has been defined, and reverting the relationship means I only have to deal with one entity. Option 2 When the user is given moderation privileges to Folder 1, define a new relationship between User 1 and Folder 1, and all child entities down to the grandest of grandchildren when the relationship is created, and if it's ever removed, iterate back down the graph to remove the relationship. If I add something under Folder 2 after this relationship has been made, I just copy all Moderators into the new Entity. But when I need to show only the top-level Folders that a user is Moderating, I need to query all folders that have a parent folder that the user does not moderate, as opposed to option 1, where I just query any items that the user is moderating. Thoughts I think it comes down to determining if users will be querying for all parent items more than they'll be querying child items... if so, then option 1 seems better. But I'm not sure. Is either approach better than the other? Why? Or is there another approach that's better than both? I'm using Entity Framework in case it matters.

  Read the article

• Is OOP becoming easier or harder?

  - by tunmise fasipe

  When the concepts of Object Oriented Programming were introduced to programmers years back it looks interesting and programming was cleaner. OOP was like this Stock stock = new Stock(); stock.addItem(item); stock.removeItem(item); That was easier to understand with self-descriptive name. But now OOP, with pattern like Data Transfer Objects (or Value Objects), Repository, Dependency Injection etc, has become more complex. To achieve the above you may have to create several classes (e.g. abstract, factory, DAO etc) and Implement several interfaces Note: I am not against best practices that makes Collaboration, Testing and Integration easier

  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

• Where ORMs blur the lines between code and data, how do you decide what logic should be a stored procedure, and what should be coded?

  - by PhonicUK

  Take the following pseudocode: CreateInvoiceAndCalculate(ItemsAndQuantities, DispatchAddress, User); And say CreateInvoice does the following: Create a new entry in an Invoices table belonging to the specified User to be sent to the given DispatchAddress. Create a new entry in an InvoiceItems table for each of the items in ItemsAndQuantities, storing the Item, the Quantity, and the cost of the item as of now (by looking it up from an Items table) Calculate the total amount of the invoice (ex shipping and taxes) and store it in the new Invoice row. At a glace you wouldn't be able to tell if this was a method in my applications code, or a stored procedure in the database that is being exposed as a function by the ORM. And to some extent it doesn't really matter. Now technically none of this is business logic. You're not making any decisions - just performing a calculation and creating records. However some may argue that because you are performing a calculation that affects the business (the total amount to be invoiced) that this isn't something that should be done in a stored procedure and instead should be in code. So for this specific example - why would it be more appropriate to do one or the other? And where do you draw the line? Or does it even particular matter as long as it's sufficiently well documented?

  Read the article

• Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

  - by rogcg

  I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

  Read the article

• Seperation of drawing and logic in games

  - by BFree

  I'm a developer that's just now starting to mess around with game development. I'm a .Net guy, so I've messed with XNA and am now playing around with Cocos2d for the iPhone. My question really is more general though. Let's say I'm building a simple Pong game. I'd have a Ball class and a Paddle class. Coming from the business world development, my first instinct is to not have any drawing or input handling code in either of these classes. //pseudo code class Ball { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Move(){} } Nothing in the ball class handles input, or deals with drawing. I'd then have another class, my Game class, or my Scene.m (in Cocos2D) which would new up the Ball, and during the game loop, it would manipulate the ball as needed. The thing is though, in many tutorials for both XNA and Cocos2D, I see a pattern like this: //pseudo code class Ball : SomeUpdatableComponent { Vector2D position; Vector2D velocity; Color color; void Update(){} void Draw(){} void HandleInput(){} } My question is, is this right? Is this the pattern that people use in game development? It somehow goes against everything I'm used to, to have my Ball class do everything. Furthermore, in this second example, where my Ball knows how to move around, how would I handle collision detection with the Paddle? Would the Ball need to have knowledge of the Paddle? In my first example, the Game class would have references to both the Ball and the Paddle, and then ship both of those off to some CollisionDetection manager or something, but how do I deal with the complexity of various components, if each individual component does everything themselves? (I hope I'm making sense.....)

  Read the article

• How Visual Studio could help to avoid duplicating code?

  - by MegaMind

  I work within a team of developers. Everyone is making their changes without carrying too much if the same thing is already implemented in the codebase. This leads to classes constantly growing and to severe duplication. I want to add line items to class definitions from which a developer could judge what this class has. Would it help? How to do it in Visual Studio? If it wouldn't help, what would be the better alternative to encourage the developers to check if something exists before implementing it?

  Read the article

• Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?

  - by Daniel Hilgarth

  Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern: public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler { public bool CanHandle(object command) { return command is FooCommand; } public void Handle(object command) { var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command; // Do something with fooCommand } } Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle without verifying the command via CanHandle, the code in Handle throws an exception. However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle this can be a whole range of different exceptions. The following implementation would check CanHandle again in Handle and throw a descriptive exception: public void Handle(object command) { if(!CanHandle(command)) throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first"); // actual implementation of handling the command. } This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive. It has the disadvantage that CanHandle is called twice for "good" clients. Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?

  Read the article

• Is "convention over configuration" not violating basic programming principles?

  - by Geerten

  I was looking at the WPF MVVM framework Caliburn.Micro and read that a lot of standard things are based on naming conventions. For example, automatic binding of properties in the View to properties in the ViewModel. Although this seems to be convenient (removes some boilerplate code), my first instinct reaction is that it isn't completely obvious to a new programmer that will read this code. In other words, the functionality of the application is not completely explained by its own code, but also by the documentation of the framework. EDIT: So this approach is called convention over configuration. Since I could not find any questions concerning this, I altered my question: My question is: Is convention over configuration a correct way of simplifying things, or is it violating some programming principles (and if so, which ones)?

  Read the article

• Client-server application design issue

  - by user2547823

  I have a collection of clients on server's side. And there are some objects that need to work with that collection - adding and removing clients, sending message to them, updating connection settings and so on. They should perform these actions simultaneously, so mutex or another synchronization primitive is required. I want to share one instance of collection between these objects, but all of them require access to private fields of collection. I hope that code sample makes it more clear[C++]: class Collection { std::vector< Client* > clients; Mutex mLock; ... } class ClientNotifier { void sendMessage() { mLock.lock(); // loop over clients and send message to each of them } } class ConnectionSettingsUpdater { void changeSettings( const std::string& name ) { mLock.lock(); // if client with this name is inside collection, change its settings } } As you can see, all these classes require direct access to Collection's private fields. Can you give me an advice about how to implement such behaviour correctly, i.e. keeping Collection's interface simple without it knowing about its users?

  Read the article

• Flags with deferred use

  - by Trenton Maki

  Let's say I have a system. In this system I have a number of operations I can do but all of these operations have to happen as a batch at a certain time, while calls to activate and deactivate these operations can come in at any time. To implement this, I could use flags like doOperation1 and doOperation2 but this seems like it would become difficult to maintain. Is there a design pattern, or something similar, that addresses this situation?

  Read the article

• Many ui panels needs interaction with same object

  - by user877329

  I am developing a tool for simulating systems like the Gray-Scott model (That is systems where spatial distribution depends on time). The actual model is loaded from a DLL or shared object and the simulation is performed by a Simulation object. There are at least two situations when the simulation needs to be destroyed: The user loads a new model The user changes the size of the domain To make sure nothing goes wrong, the current Model, Simulation, and rendering Thread are all managed by an ApplicationState object. But the two cases above are initiated from two different UI objects. Is it then ok to distribute a reference to the ApplicationState object to all panels that need to access at least one method on the ApplicationState object? Another solution would be to use aggregation so that the panel from which the user chooses model knows the simulation parameter panel. Also, the ApplicationState class seems somewhat clumsy, so I would like to have something else

  Read the article

• Figuring out the Call chain

  - by BDotA

  Let's say I have an assemblyA that has a method which creates an instance of assemblyB and calls its MethodFoo(). Now assemblyB also creates an instance of assemblyC and calls MethodFoo(). So no matter if I start with assemblyB in the code flow or with assemlyA, at the end we are calling that MethodFoo of AssemblyC(). My question is when I am in the MethodFoo() how can I know who has called me? Has it been a call originally from assemblyA or was it from assemlyB? Is there any design pattern or a good OO way of solving this?

  Read the article

• How can I design my classes for a calendar based on database events?

  - by Gianluca78

  I'm developing a web calendar in php (using Symfony2) inspired by iCal for a project of mine. At this moment, I have two classes: a class "Calendar" and a class "CalendarCell". Here you are the two classes properties and method declarations. class Calendar { private $month; private $monthName; private $year; private $calendarCellList = array(); private $translator; public function __construct($month, $year, $translator) {} public function getCalendarCells() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getMonthName() {} public function getNextMonth() {} public function getNextYear() {} public function getPreviousMonth() {} public function getPreviousYear() {} public function getYear() {} private function calculateDaysPreviousMonth() {} private function calculateNumericDayOfTheFirstDayOfTheWeek() {} private function isCurrentDay(\DateTime $dateTime) {} private function isDifferentMonth(\DateTime $dateTime) {} } class CalendarCell { private $day; private $month; private $dayNameAbbreviation; private $numericDayOfTheWeek; private $isCurrentDay; private $isDifferentMonth; private $translator; public function __construct(array $parameters) {} public function getDay() {} public function getMonth() {} public function getDayNameAbbreviation() {} public function isCurrentDay() {} public function isDifferentMonth() {} } Each calendar day can includes many events stored in a database. My question is: which is the best way to manage these events in my classes? I think to add a eventList property in CalendarCell and populate it with an array of CalendarEvent objects fetched by the database. This kind of solution doesn't allow other coders to reuse the classes without db (because I should inject at least a repository services also) just to create and visualize a calendar... so maybe it could be better to extend CalendarCell (for instance in CalendarCellEvent) and add the database features? I feel like I'm missing some crucial design pattern! Any suggestion will be very appreciated!

  Read the article

• Using packages (gems, eggs, etc.) to create decoupled architectures

  - by Juan Carlos Coto

  The main issue Seeing the good support most modern programming platforms have for package management (think gem, npm, pip, etc), does it make sense to design an application or system be composed of internally developed packages, so as to promote and create a loosely coupled architecture? Example An example of this would be to create packages for database access, as well as for authentication and other components of the system. These, of course, use external packages as well. Then, your system imports and uses these packages - instead of including their code within its own code base. Considerations To me, it seems that this would promote code decoupling and help maintainability, almost in a Web-based-vs.-desktop-application kind of way (updates are applied almost automatically, single code base for single functionality, etc.). Does this seem like a rational and sane design concept? Is this actually used as a standard way of structuring applications today? Thanks very much!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >