Search Results

Search found 28476 results on 1140 pages for 'information architecture'.

Page 60/1140 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

• Data Management Business Continuity Planning

  Business Continuity Governance In order to ensure data continuity for an organization, they need to ensure they know how to handle a data or network emergency because all systems have the potential to fail. Data Continuity Checklist: Disaster Recovery Plan/Policy Backups Redundancy Trained Staff Business Continuity Policies In order to protect data in case of any emergency a company needs to put in place a Disaster recovery plan and policies that can be executed by IT staff to ensure the continuity of the existing data and/or limit the amount of data that is not contiguous.  A disaster recovery plan is a comprehensive statement of consistent actions to be taken before, during and after a disaster, according to Geoffrey H. Wold. He also states that the primary objective of disaster recovery planning is to protect the organization in the event that all or parts of its operations and/or computer services are rendered unusable. Furthermore, companies can mandate through policies that IT must maintain redundant hardware in case of any hardware failures and redundant network connectivity incase the primary internet service provider goes down.  Additionally, they can require that all staff be trained in regards to the Disaster recovery policy to ensure that all parties evolved are knowledgeable to execute the recovery plan. Business Continuity Procedures Business continuity procedure vary from organization to origination, however there are standard procedures that most originations should follow. Standard Business Continuity Procedures Backup and Test Backups to ensure that they work Hire knowledgeable and trainable staff  Offer training on new and existing systems Regularly monitor, test, maintain, and upgrade existing system hardware and applications Maintain redundancy regarding all data, and critical business functionality

  Read the article

• design for supporting entities with images

  - by brainydexter

  I have multiple entities like Hotels, Destination Cities etc which can contain images. The way I have my system setup right now is, I think of all the images belonging to this universal set (a table in the DB contains filePaths to all the images). When I have to add an image to an entity, I see if the entity exists in this universal set of images. If it exists, attach the reference to this image, else create a new image. E.g.: class ImageEntityHibernateDAO { public void addImageToEntity(IContainImage entity, String filePath, String title, String altText) { ImageEntity image = this.getImage(filePath); if (image == null) image = new ImageEntity(filePath, title, altText); getSession().beginTransaction(); entity.getImages().add(image); getSession().getTransaction().commit(); } } My question is: Earlier I had to write this code for each entity (and each entity would have a Set collection). So, instead of re-writing the same code, I created the following interface: public interface IContainImage { Set<ImageEntity> getImages(); } Entities which have image collections also implements IContainImage interface. Now, for any entity that needs to support adding Image functionality, all I have to invoke from the DAO looks something like this: // in DestinationDAO::addImageToDestination { imageDao.addImageToEntity(destination, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); // in HotelDAO::addImageToHotel { imageDao.addImageToEntity(hotel, imageFileName, imageTitle, imageAltText); It'd be great help if someone can provide me some critique on this design ? Are there any serious flaws that I'm not seeing right away ?

  Read the article

• Should components have sub-components in a component-based system like Artemis?

  - by Daniel Ingraham

  I am designing a game using Artemis, although this is more of philosophical question about component-based design in general. Let's say I have non-primitive data which applies to a given component (a Component "animal" may have qualities such as "teeth" or "diet"). There are three ways to approach this in data-driven design, as I see it: 1) Generate classes for these qualities using "traditional" OOP. I imagine this has negative implications for performance, as systems then must be made aware of these qualities in order to process them. It also seems counter to the overall philosophy of data-driven design. 2) Include these qualities as sub-components. This seems off, in that we are now confusing the role of components with that of entities. Moreover out of the box Artemis isn't capable of mapping these subcomponents onto their parent components. 3) Add "teeth", "diet", etc. as components to the overall entity alongside "animal". While this feels odd hierarchically, it may simply be a peculiarity of component-based systems. I suspect 3 is the correct way to think about things, but I was curious about other ideas.

  Read the article

• Why make the login page to a single page application a separate page?

  - by ryanzec

  I am wondering why it seems to be popular to have the login page of a SPA be a separate page that is not page of the SPA (as in loaded and send data through ajax requests)? I only thing I can think of is security but I can't think a specific security reason. I mean the only thing that come to mind is that if your login page in part of the SPA, it sends the username/password through ajax which can be seen by such tools like firebug or web inspector however even if you send it as a normal POST request, there are other tools that can easily capture this data (like fiddler, httpscoop, etc...). Is there something I am missing?

  Read the article

• How to track many in-game statistics

  - by Alex Schearer

  I am looking to track many in-game events, e.g. the score of each move, how many moves are taken, what types of moves, etc. A lot of stats can simply be tracked with a counter. In some cases I need to aggregate data in order to calculate the value (e.g. most common move). How are you tracking in-game stats for your games? How do you avoid creating a class with tens or hundreds of fields? How do you avoid littering the code with tracking invocations? How do you abstract the aggregate data so as to avoid rewriting it for each scenario?

  Read the article

• 2D scene graph not transforming relative to parent

  - by Dr.Denis McCracleJizz

  I am currently in the process of coding my own 2D Scene graph, which is basically a port of flash's render engine. The problem I have right now is my rendering doesn't seem to be working properly. This code creates the localTransform property for each DisplayObject. Matrix m_transform = Matrix.CreateRotationZ(rotation) * Matrix.CreateScale(scaleX, scaleY, 1) * Matrix.CreateTranslation(new Vector3(x, y, z)); This is my render code. float dRotation; Vector2 dPosition, dScale; Matrix transform; transform = this.localTransform; if (parent != null) transform = localTransform * parent.localTransform; DecomposeMatrix(ref transform, out dPosition, out dRotation, out dScale); spriteBatch.Draw(this.texture, dPosition, null, Color.White, dRotation, new Vector2(originX, originY), dScale, SpriteEffects.None, 0.0f); Here is the result when I try to add the Stage then to the stage a First DisplayObjectContainer and then a second one. It may look fine but the problem lies in the fact that I add a first DisplayObjectContainer at (400,400) and the second one within it (that's the smallest one) at position (0,0). So he should be right over its parent but he gets render within the parent at the same position the parent has (400, 400) for some reason. It's just as if I double the parent's localMatrix and then render the second cat there. This is the code i use to loop through every childs. base.Draw(spriteBatch); foreach (DisplayObject childs in _childs) { childs.Draw(spriteBatch); }

  Read the article

• Hiring New IT Employees versus Promoting Internally for IT Positions

  Recently I was asked my opinion regarding the hiring of IT professionals in regards to the option of hiring new IT employees versus promoting internally for IT positions. After thinking a little more about this question regarding staffing, specifically pertaining to promoting internally verses new employees; I think my answer to this question is that it truly depends on the situation. However, in most cases I would side with promoting internally. The key factors in this decision should be based on a company/department’s current values, culture, attitude, and existing priorities.  For example if a company values retaining all of its hard earned business knowledge then they would tend to promote existing employees internal over hiring a new employee. Moreover, the company will have to pay to train an existing employee to learn a new technology and the learning curve for some technologies can be very steep. Conversely, if a company values new technologies and technical proficiency over business knowledge then a company would tend to hire new employees because they may already have experience with a technology that the company is planning on using. In this scenario, the company would have to take on the additional overhead of allowing a new employee to learn how the business operates prior to them being fully effective. To illustrate my points above let us look at contractor that builds in ground pools for example.  He has the option to hire employees that are very strong but use small shovels to dig, or employees weak in physical strength but use large shovels to dig. Which employee should the contractor use to dig a hole for a new in ground pool? If we compare the possible candidates for this job we will find that they are very similar to hiring someone internally verses a new hire. The first example represents the existing workers that are very strong regarding the understanding how the business operates and the reasons why in a specific manner. However this employee could be potentially weaker than an outsider pertaining to specific technologies and would need some time to build their technical prowess for a new position much like the strong worker upgrading their shovels in order to remove more dirt at once when digging. The other employee is very similar to hiring a new person that may already have the large shovel but will need to increase their strength in order to use the shovel properly and efficiently so that they can move a maximum amount of dirt in a minimal amount of time. This can be compared to new employ learning how a business operates before they can be fully functional and integrated in the company/department. Another key factor in this dilemma pertains to existing employee and their passion for their work, their ability to accept new responsibility when given, and the willingness to take on responsibilities when they see a need in the business. As much as possible should be considered in this decision down to the mood of the team, the quality of existing staff, learning cure for both technology and business, and the potential side effects of the existing staff.  In addition, there are many more consideration based on the current team/department/companies culture and mood. There are several factors that need to be considered when promoting an individual or hiring new blood for a team. They both can provide great benefits as well as create controversy to a group. Personally, staffing especially in the IT world is like building a large scale system in that all of the components and modules must fit together and preform as one cohesive system in the same way a team must come together using their individually acquired skills so that they can work as one team.  If a module is out of place or is nonexistent then the rest of the team will suffer until the all of its issues are addressed and resolved. Benefits of Promoting Internally Internal promotions give employees a reason to constantly upgrade their technology, business, and communication skills if they want to further their career Employees can control their own destiny based on personal desires Employee already knows how the business operates Companies can save money by promoting internally because the initial overhead of allowing new hires to learn how a company operates is very expensive Newly promoted employees can assist in training their replacements while transitioning to their new role within a company. Existing employees already have a proven track record in regards fitting in with the business culture; this is always an unknown with all new hires Benefits of a New Hire New employees can energize and excite existing employees New employees can bring new ideas and advancements in technology New employees can offer a different perspective on existing issues based on their past experience. As you can see the decision to promote an existing employee from within a company verses hiring a new person should be based on several factors that should ultimately place the business in the best possible situation for the immediate and long term future. How would you handle this situation? Would you hire a new employee or promote from within?

  Read the article

• Leveraging Code Across Platforms in Ever Bigger Games

  - by ashes999

  Summary: The same way that I continually build complex engines and libraries within a single platform and technology to allow me to build increasingly bigger and better games, how to continue this when development crosses into different platforms? If I switch platforms, how do I leverage past code and experiences? Games are hard to build. Big games are even harder to build. I've decided that to be able to make big games, I need to start building smaller games, and building up an asset base of code, assets (graphics, sounds), tools, and most importantly, game engines, so that I can eventually get there. One game at a time. Let me give an analogy. To build an MMO 3D RPG, I would approach this by building and releasing small games with increasingly more features. This could entail, for example: A simple 2D game A tile-based game A game with RPG elements (items, equipment, monsters, battle) A full-fledged RPG A 3D RPG The problem now is if I have to change platforms or tools, I don't know how to leverage past code-bases (and experience) to start with a mature product. Right now, I'm writing Silverlight (FlatRedBall) games. Let's say I stick with this for ten years, and then suddenly decide to write a PS6 game, which is in a different programming language entirely. Granted, I have ten years of game-development experience (and correspondingly ten years of professional software development experience from my day job) to back me up. But I would still like some way to transplant that 2D RPG engine into the new programming language, or else leverage it somehow. Is this even possible? What are my options?

  Read the article

• Many sources of movement in an entity system

  - by Sticky

  I'm fairly new to the idea of entity systems, having read a bunch of stuff (most usefully, this great blog and this answer). Though I'm having a little trouble understanding how something as simple as being able to manipualate the position of an object by an undefined number of sources. That is, I have my entity, which has a position component. I then have some event in the game which tells this entity to move a given distance, in a given time. These events can happen at any time, and will have different values for position and time. The result is that they'd be compounded together. In a traditional OO solution, I'd have some sort of MoveBy class, that contains the distance/time, and an array of those inside my game object class. Each frame, I'd iterate through all the MoveBy, and apply it to the position. If a MoveBy has reached its finish time, remove it from the array. With the entity system, I'm a little confused as how I should replicate this sort of behavior. If there were just one of these at a time, instead of being able to compound them together, it'd be fairly straightforward (I believe) and look something like this: PositionComponent containing x, y MoveByComponent containing x, y, time Entity which has both a PositionComponent and a MoveByComponent MoveBySystem that looks for an entity with both these components, and adds the value of MoveByComponent to the PositionComponent. When the time is reached, it removes the component from that entity. I'm a bit confused as to how I'd do the same thing with many move by's. My initial thoughts are that I would have: PositionComponent, MoveByComponent the same as above MoveByCollectionComponent which contains an array of MoveByComponents MoveByCollectionSystem that looks for an entity with a PositionComponent and a MoveByCollectionComponent, iterating through the MoveByComponents inside it, applying/removing as necessary. I guess this is a more general problem, of having many of the same component, and wanting a corresponding system to act on each one. My entities contain their components inside a hash of component type - component, so strictly have only 1 component of a particular type per entity. Is this the right way to be looking at this? Should an entity only ever have one component of a given type at all times?

  Read the article

• Making efficeint voxel engines using "chunks"

  - by Wardy

  Concept I'm currently looking in to how voxel engines work with a view to possibly making one myself. I see a lot of stuff like this ... https://sites.google.com/site/letsmakeavoxelengine/home/chunks ... which talks about how to go about reducing the draw calls. What I can't seem to understand is how it actually saves draw call counts on the basis of the logic being something like this ... Without chunks foreach voxel in myvoxels DrawIfVisible() With Chunks foreach chunk in mychunks DrawIfVisible() which then does ... foreach voxel in myvoxels DrawIfVisible() So surely you saved nothing ?!?! You still make a draw call for each visible voxel do you not? A visible voxel needs a draw call in either scenario. The only real saving I can see is that the logic that evaluates a chunk will be able to determine if a large number of voxels are visible or not effectively saving a bit of "is this chunk visible" cpu time. But it's the draw calls that interest me ... The fewer of those, the faster the application. EDIT: In case it makes any difference I will probably be using XNA (DX not OpenGL) for my engine so don't consider my choice of example in the link above my choice of technology. But this question is such that I doubt it would matter.

  Read the article

• How should I structure my turn based engine to allow flexibility for players/AI and observation?

  - by Reefpirate

  I've just started making a Turn Based Strategy engine in GameMaker's GML language... And I was cruising along nicely until it came time to handle the turn cycle, and determining who is controlling what player, and also how to handle the camera and what is displayed on screen. Here's an outline of the main switch happening in my main game loop at the moment: switch (GameState) { case BEGIN_TURN: // Start of turn operations/routines break; case MID_TURN: switch (PControlledBy[Turn]) { case HUMAN: switch (MidTurnState) { case MT_SELECT: // No units selected, 'idle' UI state break; case MT_MOVE: // Unit selected and attempting to move break; case MT_ATTACK: break; } break; case COMPUTER: // AI ROUTINES GO HERE break; case OBSERVER: // OBSERVER ROUTINES GO HERE break; } break; case END_TURN: // End of turn routines/operations, and move Turn to next player break; } Now, I can see a couple of problems with this set-up already... But I don't have any idea how to go about making it 'right'. Turn is a global variable that stores which player's turn it is, and the BEGIN_TURN and END_TURN states make perfect sense to me... But the MID_TURN state is baffling me because of the things I want to happen here: If there are players controlled by humans, I want the AI to do it's thing on its turn here, but I want to be able to have the camera follow the AI as it makes moves in the human player's vision. If there are no human controlled player's, I'd like to be able to watch two or more AI's battle it out on the map with god-like 'observer' vision. So basically I'm wondering if there are any resources for how to structure a Turn Based Strategy engine? I've found lots of writing about pathfinding and AI, and those are all great... But when it comes to handling the turn structure and the game states I am having trouble finding any resources at all. How should the states be divided to allow flexibility between the players and the controllers (HUMAN, COMPUTER, OBSERVER)? Also, maybe if I'm on the right track I just need some reassurance before I lay down another few hundred lines of code...

  Read the article

• Where to start building a BaaS

  - by Wesley

  I'm building a Cloud Platform, and the next phase of design involves building an extensible BaaS back end. (see http://youtu.be/lNi-05-PyEw) The reason I think we can attempt this, is there are dozens of these kinds of extensible back end data proxy's popping up almost daily at this point, which tells me the enabling technology is there to build one from scratch in a few months. I'd like to start in the right area: What kind of Dev background should I look for? What kind of tech stack should I build on? What kind of costs can I expect in terms of man-hours, etc... I know there isn't one right answer here, but I think this is the right sub to post this in, and credit will go towards to most constructive answer.

  Read the article

• Adjusting server-side tickrate dynamically

  - by Stuart Blackler

  I know nothing of game development/this site, so I apologise if this is completely foobar. Today I experimented with building a small game loop for a network game (think MW3, CSGO etc). I was wondering why they do not build in automatic rate adjustment based on server performance? Would it affect the client that much if the client knew this frame is based on this tickrate? Has anyone attempted this before? Here is what my noobish C++ brain came up with earlier. It will improve the tickrate if it has been stable for x ticks. If it "lags", the tickrate will be reduced down by y amount: // GameEngine.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #ifdef WIN32 #include <Windows.h> #else #include <sys/time.h> #include <ctime> #endif #include<iostream> #include <dos.h> #include "stdafx.h" using namespace std; UINT64 GetTimeInMs() { #ifdef WIN32 /* Windows */ FILETIME ft; LARGE_INTEGER li; /* Get the amount of 100 nano seconds intervals elapsed since January 1, 1601 (UTC) and copy it * to a LARGE_INTEGER structure. */ GetSystemTimeAsFileTime(&ft); li.LowPart = ft.dwLowDateTime; li.HighPart = ft.dwHighDateTime; UINT64 ret = li.QuadPart; ret -= 116444736000000000LL; /* Convert from file time to UNIX epoch time. */ ret /= 10000; /* From 100 nano seconds (10^-7) to 1 millisecond (10^-3) intervals */ return ret; #else /* Linux */ struct timeval tv; gettimeofday(&tv, NULL); uint64 ret = tv.tv_usec; /* Convert from micro seconds (10^-6) to milliseconds (10^-3) */ ret /= 1000; /* Adds the seconds (10^0) after converting them to milliseconds (10^-3) */ ret += (tv.tv_sec * 1000); return ret; #endif } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { int sv_tickrate_max = 1000; // The maximum amount of ticks per second int sv_tickrate_min = 100; // The minimum amount of ticks per second int sv_tickrate_adjust = 10; // How much to de/increment the tickrate by int sv_tickrate_stable_before_increment = 1000; // How many stable ticks before we increase the tickrate again int sys_tickrate_current = sv_tickrate_max; // Always start at the highest possible tickrate for the best performance int counter_stable_ticks = 0; // How many ticks we have not lagged for UINT64 __startTime = GetTimeInMs(); int ticks = 100000; while(ticks > 0) { int maxTimeInMs = 1000 / sys_tickrate_current; UINT64 _startTime = GetTimeInMs(); // Long code here... cout << "."; UINT64 _timeTaken = GetTimeInMs() - _startTime; if(_timeTaken < maxTimeInMs) { Sleep(maxTimeInMs - _timeTaken); counter_stable_ticks++; if(counter_stable_ticks >= sv_tickrate_stable_before_increment) { // reset the stable # ticks counter counter_stable_ticks = 0; // make sure that we don't go over the maximum tickrate if(sys_tickrate_current + sv_tickrate_adjust <= sv_tickrate_max) { sys_tickrate_current += sv_tickrate_adjust; // let me know in console #DEBUG cout << endl << "Improving tickrate. New tickrate: " << sys_tickrate_current << endl; } } } else if(_timeTaken > maxTimeInMs) { cout << endl; if((sys_tickrate_current - sv_tickrate_adjust) > sv_tickrate_min) { sys_tickrate_current -= sv_tickrate_adjust; } else { if(sys_tickrate_current == sv_tickrate_min) { cout << "Please reduce sv_tickrate_min..." << endl; } else{ sys_tickrate_current = sv_tickrate_min; } } // let me know in console #DEBUG cout << "The server has lag. Reduced tickrate to: " << sys_tickrate_current << endl; } ticks--; } UINT64 __timeTaken = GetTimeInMs() - __startTime; cout << endl << endl << "Total time in ms: " << __timeTaken; cout << endl << "Ending tickrate: " << sys_tickrate_current; char test; cin >> test; return 0; }

  Read the article

• DDD / Layers and legacy systems

  - by CSM

  I have to refactor a complex C# app (many dialogs, mixed logic and so on). There is a part managing the communication with special hardware equipments (sending commands and receive data via asynchronous c# callbacks). The code is "spaghetti" with mixed UI/Logic/Communication/etc and my task is to split the layers in a DDD sense. So, to which layer belongs a callback driver routine? The callbacks are creating "bubbles" in the system, up to the UI layer and because of this I cannot enforce the essential principle that any element of a layer depends only on other elements in the same layer or on elements of the layers "beneath" it. Thank you in advance.

  Read the article

• Structuring game world entities and their rendering objects

  - by keithjgrant

  I'm putting together a simple 2d tile-based game. I'm finding myself spinning circles on some design decisions, and I think I'm in danger of over-engineering. After all, the game is simple enough that I had a working prototype inside of four hours with fewer than ten classes, it just wasn't scalable or flexible enough for a polished game. My question is about how to structure flow of control between game entity objects and their rendering objects. Should each renderer have a reference to their entity or vice-versa? Or both? Should the entity be in control of calling the render() method, or be completely oblivious? I know there are several valid approaches here, but I'm kind of feeling decision paralysis. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

  Read the article

• Writing Game Engine from scratch with OpenGL [on hold]

  - by Wazery

  I want to start writing my game engine from scratch for learning purpose, what is the prerequisites and how to do that, what programming languages and things you recommend me? Also if you have good articles and books on that it will be great. Thanks in advance! My Programming languages and tools are: C/C++ is it good to use only C? Python OpenGL Git GDB What I want to learn from it: Core Game Engine Rendering / Graphics Game Play/Rules Input (keyboard/mouse/controllers, etc) In Rendering/Graphics: 3D Shading Lighting Texturing

  Read the article

• Best design for a "Command Executer" class

  - by Justin984

  Sorry for the vague title, I couldn't think of a way to condense the question. I am building an application that will run as a background service and intermittently collect data about the system its running on. A second Android controller application will query the system over tcp/ip for statistics about the system. Currently, the background service has a tcp listener class that reads/writes bytes from a socket. When data is received, it raises an event to notify the service. The service takes the bytes, feeds them into a command parser to figure out what is being requested, and then passes the parsed command to a command executer class. When the service receives a "query statistics" command, it should return statistics over the tcp/ip connection. Currently, all of these classes are fully decoupled from each other. But in order for the command executer to return statistics, it will obviously need access to the socket somehow. For reasons I can't completely articulate, it feels wrong for the command executer to have a direct reference to the socket. I'm looking for strategies and/or design patterns I can use to return data over the socket while keeping the classes decoupled, if this is possible. Hopefully this makes sense, please let me know if I can include any info that would make the question easier to understand.

  Read the article

• Query something and return the reason if nothing has been found

  - by Daniel Hilgarth

  Assume I have a Query - as in CQS that is supposed to return a single value. Let's assume that the case that no value is found is not exceptional, so no exception will be thrown in this case. Instead, null is returned. However, if no value has been found, I need to act according to the reason why no value has been found. Assuming that the Query knows the reason, how would I communicate it to the caller of the Query? A simple solution would be not return the value directly but a container object that contains the value and the reason: public class QueryResult { public TValue Value { get; private set; } public TReason ReasonForNoValue { get; private set; } } But that feels clumsy, because if a value is found, ReasonForNoValue makes no sense and if no value has been found, Value makes no sense. What other options do I have to communicate the reason? What do you think of one event per reason? For reference: This is going to be implemented in C#.

  Read the article

• Mobile Multiplayer games and coping with high latency

  - by spaceOwl

  I'm currently researching regarding a design for an online (realtime) mobile multiplayer game. As such, i'm taking into consideration that latencies (lag) is going to be high (perhaps higher than PC/consoles). I'd like to know if there are ways to overcome this or minimize the issues of high latency? The model i'll be using is peer-to-peer (using Photon cloud to broadcast messages to all other players). How do i deal with a scenario where a message about a local object's state at time t will only get to other players at *t + HUGE_LAG* ?

  Read the article

• Profiling and containing memory per system

  - by chadb

  I have been interesting in profiling and keeping a managed memory pool for each subsystem, so I could get statistic on how much memory was being used in something such as sounds or graphics. However, what is the best design for doing this? I was thinking of using multiple allocators and just using one per subsystem, however, that would result in global variables for my allocators (or so it would seem to me). Another approach I have seen/been suggested is to just overload new and pass in an allocator for a parameter. I had a similar question over on stackoverflow here with a bounty, however, it seems as if perhaps I was too vague or just there is not enough people with knowledge in the subject.

  Read the article

• Do you leverage the benefits of the open-closed principle?

  - by Kaleb Pederson

  The open-closed principle (OCP) states that an object should be open for extension but closed for modification. I believe I understand it and use it in conjunction with SRP to create classes that do only one thing. And, I try to create many small methods that make it possible to extract out all the behavior controls into methods that may be extended or overridden in some subclass. Thus, I end up with classes that have many extension points, be it through: dependency injection and composition, events, delegation, etc. Consider the following a simple, extendable class: class PaycheckCalculator { // ... protected decimal GetOvertimeFactor() { return 2.0M; } } Now say, for example, that the OvertimeFactor changes to 1.5. Since the above class was designed to be extended, I can easily subclass and return a different OvertimeFactor. But... despite the class being designed for extension and adhering to OCP, I'll modify the single method in question, rather than subclassing and overridding the method in question and then re-wiring my objects in my IoC container. As a result I've violated part of what OCP attempts to accomplish. It feels like I'm just being lazy because the above is a bit easier. Am I misunderstanding OCP? Should I really be doing something different? Do you leverage the benefits of OCP differently? Update: based on the answers it looks like this contrived example is a poor one for a number of different reasons. The main intent of the example was to demonstrate that the class was designed to be extended by providing methods that when overridden would alter the behavior of public methods without the need for changing internal or private code. Still, I definitely misunderstood OCP.

  Read the article

• What common interface would be appropriate for these game object classes?

  - by Jefffrey

  Question A component based system's goal is to solve the problems that derives from inheritance: for example the fact that some parts of the code (that are called components) are reused by very different classes that, hypothetically, would lie in a very different branch of the inheritance tree. That's a very nice concept, but I've found out that CBS is often hard to accomplish without using ugly hacks. Implementations of this system are often far from clean. But I don't want to discuss this any further. My question is: how can I solve the same problems a CBS try to solve with a very clean interface? (possibly with examples, there are a lot of abstract talks about the "perfect" design already). Context Here's an example I was going for before realizing I was just reinventing inheritance again: class Human { public: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other human specific components }; class Zombie { Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; // other zombie specific components }; After writing that I realized I needed an interface, otherwise I would have needed N containers for N different types of objects (or to use boost::variant to gather them all together). So I've thought of polymorphism (move what systems do in a CBS design into class specific functions): class Entity { public: virtual void on_event(Event) {} // not pure virtual on purpose virtual void on_update(World) {} virtual void on_draw(Window) {} }; class Human : public Entity { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; class Zombie : public Entity { private: Position position; Movement movement; Sprite sprite; public: virtual void on_event(Event) { ... } virtual void on_update(World) { ... } virtual void on_draw(Window) { ... } }; Which was nice, except for the fact that now the outside world would not even be able to know where a Human is positioned (it does not have access to its position member). That would be useful to track the player position for collision detection or if on_update the Zombie would want to track down its nearest human to move towards him. So I added const Position& get_position() const; to both the Zombie and Human classes. And then I realized that both functionality were shared, so it should have gone to the common base class: Entity. Do you notice anything? Yes, with that methodology I would have a god Entity class full of common functionality (which is the thing I was trying to avoid in the first place). Meaning of "hacks" in the implementation I'm referring to I'm talking about the implementations that defines Entities as simple IDs to which components are dynamically attached. Their implementation can vary from C-stylish: int last_id; Position* positions[MAX_ENTITIES]; Movement* movements[MAX_ENTITIES]; Where positions[i], movements[i], component[i], ... make up the entity. Or to more C++-style: int last_id; std::map<int, Position> positions; std::map<int, Movement> movements; From which systems can detect if an entity/id can have attached components.

  Read the article

• How should I architect a personal schedule manager that runs 24/7?

  - by Crawford Comeaux

  I've developed an ADHD management system for myself that's attempting to change multiple habits at once. I know this is counter to conventional wisdom, but I've tried the conventional for years & am now trying it my way. (just wanted to say that to try and prevent it from distracting people from the actual question) Anyway, I'd like to write something to run on a remote server that monitors me, helps me build/avoid certain habits, etc. What this amounts to is a system that: runs 24/7 may have multiple independent tasks to run at once may have tasks that require other tasks to run first lets tasks be scheduled by specific time, recurrence (ie. "run every 5 mins"), or interval (ie. "run from 2pm to 3pm") My first naive attempt at this was just a single PHP script scheduled to run every minute by cron (language was chosen in order to use a certain library, but no longer necessary). The logic behind when to run this or that portion of code got hairy pretty quick. So my question is how should I approach this from here? I'm not tied to any one language, though I'm partial to python/javascript. Thoughts: Could be done as a set of scripts that include a scheduling mechanism with one script per bit of logic...but the idea just feels wrong to me. Building it as a daemon could be helpful, but still unsure what to do about dozens of if-else statements for detecting the current time

  Read the article

• Service Layer - how broad should it be, and should it also be on the local application?

  - by BornToCode

  Background: I need to build a desktop application with some operations (CRUD and more) (=winforms), I need to make another application which will re-use some of the functions of the main application (=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

• prism and multiple screens

  - by Avi

  OK - I am studying Prism a little because of a "free weekend" offer on Pluralsight. As this is proving too complex for me, I went to the Prism book and looked at the forward, and this is what it said: What comes after “Hello, World?” WPF and Silverlight developers are blessed with an abundance of excellent books... There’s no lack of tutorials on Model-View-ViewModel ... But they stop short of the guidance you need to deliver a non-trivial application in full. Your first screen goes well. You add a second screen and a third. Because you started your solution with the built-in “Navigation Application Template,” adding new screens feels like hanging shirts on a closet rod. You are on a roll. Until the harsh reality of real application requirements sets in. As it happens, your application has 30 screens not three. There’s no room on that closet rod for 30 screens. Some screens are modal pop-ups; you don’t navigate to a pop-up. Screens become interdependent such that user activity in one screen triggers changes that propagate throughout the UI. Some screens are optional; others are visible only to authorized users. Some screens are permanent, while other screens can be opened and closed at will. You discover that navigating back to a previously displayed screen creates a new instance. That’s not what you expected and, to your horror, the prior instance is gone along with the user’s unsaved changes. Now the issue is, I don't relate to this description. I've never been a UI programmer, but same as everyone else I'm using Windows apps such as MS-Office, and web sites such as Amazon, Facebook and StackExchange. And I look at these and I don't see many "so many screens" issues! Indeed, the only applications having many windows I can think of is Visual Studio. Maybe also Visio, a little. But take Word - You have a ribbon and a main window. Or take Facebook: You have those lists on the left (Favorites, Lists, Groups etc.), the status middle, the adds and then the Contacts sidebar. But it's only one page. Of course, I understand that in enterprise scenarios there are dashboad applications where multiple segments of the screen are updated from multiple non-related services. This I dig. But other scenarios? So - What am I missing? What is the "multiple screens" monster Pirsm is supposed to be the silver bullet solution for? Shoud I invest in studying Prism in addition to learning WPF or ASP.NET MVC?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >