Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

Page 61/170 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

• Architecting ASP.net MVC App to use repositories and services

  - by zaladane

  Hello, I recently started reading about ASP.net MVC and after getting excited about the concept, i started to migrate all my webform project to MVC but i am having a hard time keeping my controller skinny even after following all the good advices out there (or maybe i just don't get it ... ). The website i deal with has Articles, Videos, Quotes ... and each of these entities have categories, comments, images that can be associated with it. I am using Linq to sql for database operations and for each of these Entities, i have a Repository, and for each repository, i create a service to be used in the controller. so i have - ArticleRepository ArticleCategoryRepository ArticleCommentRepository and the corresponding service ArticleService ArticleCategoryService ... you see the picture. The problem i have is that i have one controller for article,category and comment because i thought that having ArticleController handle all of that might make sense, but now i have to pass all of the services needed to the Controller constructor. So i would like to know what it is that i am doing wrong. Are my services not designed properly? should i create Bigger service to encapsulate smaller services and use them in my controller? or should i have an articleCategory Controller and an articleComment Controller? A page viewed by the user is made of all of that, thee article to be viewed,the comments associated with it, a listing of the categories to witch it applies ... how can i efficiently break down the controller to keep it "skinny" and solve my headache? Thank you! I hope my question is not too long to be read ...

  Read the article

• Is there any reason for an object pool to not be treated as a singleton?

  - by Chris Charabaruk

  I don't necessarily mean implemented using the singleton pattern, but rather, only having and using one instance of a pool. I don't like the idea of having just one pool (or one per pooled type). However, I can't really come up with any concrete situations where there's an advantage to multiple pools for mutable types, at least not any where a single pool can function just as well. What advantages are there to having multiple pools over a singleton pool?

  Read the article

• How does java implement flyweight pattern for string under the hood?

  - by Dan

  If you have two instances of a String, and they are equal, in Java they will share the same memory. How is this implemented under the hood?

  Read the article

• Is it bad practice to make a setter return "this"?

  - by Ken Liu

  Is it a good or bad idea to make setters in java return "this"? public Employee setName(String name){ this.name = name; return this; } This pattern can be useful because then you can chain setters like this: list.add(new Employee().setName("Jack Sparrow").setId(1).setFoo("bacon!")); instead of this: Employee e = new Employee(); e.setName("Jack Sparrow"); ...and so on... list.add(e); ...but it sort of goes against standard convention. I suppose it might be worthwhile just because it can make that setter do something else useful. I've seen this pattern used some places (e.g. JMock, JPA), but it seems uncommon, and only generally used for very well defined APIs where this pattern is used everywhere. Update: What I've described is obviously valid, but what I am really looking for is some thoughts on whether this is generally acceptable, and if there are any pitfalls or related best practices. I know about the Builder pattern but it is a little more involved then what I am describing - as Josh Bloch describes it there is an associated static Builder class for object creation.

  Read the article

• How do I write user-specific configuration into a rails app?

  - by dchua

  Hi all, What is the current practice like to write user-specific configuration settings into a rails application? For example, privacy settings in a social networking application. I know application-wide settings can be stored in a .yml file in config/ but what about users?

  Read the article

• Hierarchy / Flyweight / Instancing Problem in Python

  - by Dan

  Here is the problem I am trying to solve, (I have simplified the actual problem, but this should give you all the relevant information). I have a hierarchy like so: 1.A 1.B 1.C 2.A 3.D 4.B 5.F (This is hard to illustrate - each number is the parent, each letter is the child). Creating an instance of the 'letter' objects is expensive (IO, database costs, etc), so should only be done once. The hierarchy needs to be easy to navigate. Children in the hierarchy need to have just one parent. Modifying the contents of the letter objects should be possible directly from the objects in the hierarchy. There needs to be a central store containing all of the 'letter' objects (and only those in the hierarchy). 'letter' and 'number' objects need to be possible to create from a constructor (such as Letter(**kwargs) ). It is perfectably acceptable to expect that when a letter changes from the hierarchy, all other letters will respect the same change. Hope this isn't too abstract to illustrate the problem. What would be the best way of solving this? (Then I'll post my solution) Here's an example script: one = Number('one') a = Letter('a') one.addChild(a) two = Number('two') a = Letter('a') two.addChild(a) for child in one: child.method1() for child in two: print '%s' % child.method2()

  Read the article

• 3 tier application pattern suggestion

  - by Maxim Gershkovich

  I have attempted to make my first 3 tier application. In the process I have run into one problem I am yet to find an optimal solution for. Basically all my objects use an IFillable interface which forces the implementation of a sub as follows Public Sub Fill(ByVal Datareader As Data.IDataReader) Implements IFillable.Fill This sub then expects the Ids from the datareader will be identical to the properties of the object as such. Me.m_StockID = Datareader.GetGuid(Datareader.GetOrdinal("StockID")) In the end I end up with a datalayer that looks something like this. Public Shared Function GetStockByID(ByVal ConnectionString As String, ByVal StockID As Guid) As Stock Dim res As New Stock Using sqlConn As New SqlConnection(ConnectionString) sqlConn.Open() res.Fill(StockDataLayer.GetStockByIDQuery(sqlConn, StockID)) End Using Return res End Function Mostly this pattern seems to make sense. However my problem is, lets say I want to implement a property for Stock called StockBarcodeList. Under the above mentioned pattern any way I implement this property I will need to pass a connectionstring to it which obviously breaks my attempt at layer separation. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might be able to solve this problem or am I going about this the completely wrong way? Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might improve my implementation? Please note however I am deliberately trying to avoid using the dataset in any form.

  Read the article

• Silverlight Async Design Pattern Issue

  - by Mike Mengell

  I'm in the middle of a Silverlight application and I have a function which needs to call a webservice and using the result complete the rest of the function. My issue is that I would have normally done a synchronous web service call got the result and using that carried on with the function. As Silverlight doesn't support synchronous web service calls without additional custom classes to mimic it, I figure it would be best to go with the flow of async rather than fight it. So my question relates around whats the best design pattern for working with async calls in program flow. In the following example I want to use the myFunction TypeId parameter depending on the return value of the web service call. But I don't want to call the web service until this function is called. How can I alter my code design to allow for the async call? string _myPath; bool myFunction(Guid TypeId) { WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient proxy = new WS_WebService1.WS_WebService1SoapClient(); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted += new System.EventHandler<WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompleted>(proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted); proxy.GetPathByTypeIdAsync(TypeId); // Get return value if (myPath == "\\Server1") { //Use the TypeId parameter in here } } void proxy_GetPathByTypeIdCompleted(object sender, WS_WebService1.GetPathByTypeIdCompletedEventArgs e) { string server = e.Result.Server; myPath = '\\' + server; } Thanks in advance, Mike

  Read the article

• pattern for the following condition in java

  - by zahir hussain

  hi i want to know how to write pattern.. for example : the word is "AboutGoogle AdWords Drive traffic and customers to your site. Pay through Cheque, Net Banking or Credit Card. Google Toolbar Add a search box to your browser. Google SMS To find out local information simply SMS to 54664. Gmail Free email with 7.2GB storage and less spam. Try Gmail today. Our ProductsHelp Help with Google Search, Services and ProductsGoogle Web Search Features Translation, I'm Feeling Lucky, CachedGoogle Services & Tools Toolbar, Google Web APIs, ButtonsGoogle Labs Ideas, Demos, ExperimentsFor Site OwnersAdvertising AdWords, AdSenseBusiness Solutions Google Search Appliance, Google Mini, WebSearchWebmaster Central One-stop shop for comprehensive info about how Google crawls and indexes websitesSubmit your content to Google Add your site, Google SitemapsOur CompanyPress Center News, Images, ZeitgeistJobs at Google Openings, Perks, CultureCorporate Info Company overview, Philosophy, Diversity, AddressesInvestor Relations Financial info, Corporate governanceMore GoogleContact Us FAQs, Feedback, NewsletterGoogle Logos Official Logos, Holiday Logos, Fan LogosGoogle Blog Insights to Google products and cultureGoogle Store Pens, Shirts, Lava lamps©2010 Google - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service" I have to search some word... for example "google insights" so how to write the code in java... i just write small code... check my code and answer my question... that code only use for find the search word, where is that. but i need to display some words front of search word and display some words rear of search workd... similar to google search... my code is Pattern p = Pattern.compile("(?i)(.*?)"+search+""); Matcher m = p.matcher(full); String title=""; while (m.find() == true) { title=m.group(1); System.out.println(title); } the full is orignal content, search s search word... thanks and advance

  Read the article

• Game AI: Pattern for implementing Sense-Think-Act components?

  - by Rosarch

  I'm developing a game. Each entity in the game is a GameObject. Each GameObject is composed of a GameObjectController, GameObjectModel, and GameObjectView. (Or inheritants thereof.) For NPCs, the GameObjectController is split into: IThinkNPC: reads current state and makes a decision about what to do IActNPC: updates state based on what needs to be done ISenseNPC: reads current state to answer world queries (eg "am I being in the shadows?") My question: Is this ok for the ISenseNPC interface? public interface ISenseNPC { // ... /// <summary> /// True if `dest` is a safe point to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="dest"></param> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <param name="range"></param> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeToRetreat(Vector2 dest, float angleToThreat, float range); /// <summary> /// Finds a new location to which to retreat. /// </summary> /// <param name="angleToThreat"></param> /// <returns></returns> Vector2 newRetreatDest(float angleToThreat); /// <summary> /// Returns the closest LightSource that illuminates the NPC. /// Null if the NPC is not illuminated. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> ILightSource ClosestIlluminatingLight(); /// <summary> /// True if the NPC is sufficiently far away from target. /// Assumes that target is the only entity it could ever run from. /// </summary> /// <returns></returns> bool IsSafeFromTarget(); } None of the methods take any parameters. Instead, the implementation is expected to maintain a reference to the relevant GameObjectController and read that. However, I'm now trying to write unit tests for this. Obviously, it's necessary to use mocking, since I can't pass arguments directly. The way I'm doing it feels really brittle - what if another implementation comes along that uses the world query utilities in a different way? Really, I'm not testing the interface, I'm testing the implementation. Poor. The reason I used this pattern in the first place was to keep IThinkNPC implementation code clean: public BehaviorState RetreatTransition(BehaviorState currentBehavior) { if (sense.IsCollidingWithTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "is colliding with target"); return BehaviorState.ATTACK; } if (sense.IsSafeFromTarget() && sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() == null) { return BehaviorState.WANDER; } if (sense.ClosestIlluminatingLight() != null && sense.SeesTarget()) { NPCUtils.TraceTransitionIfNeeded(ToString(), BehaviorState.ATTACK.ToString(), "collides with target"); return BehaviorState.CHASE; } return currentBehavior; } Perhaps the cleanliness isn't worth it, however. So, if ISenseNPC takes all the params it needs every time, I could make it static. Is there any problem with that?

  Read the article

• How can i convert this to a factory/abstract factory?

  - by Amitd

  I'm using MigraDoc to create a pdf document. I have business entities similar to the those used in MigraDoc. public class Page{ public List<PageContent> Content { get; set; } } public abstract class PageContent { public int Width { get; set; } public int Height { get; set; } public Margin Margin { get; set; } } public class Paragraph : PageContent{ public string Text { get; set; } } public class Table : PageContent{ public int Rows { get; set; } public int Columns { get; set; } //.... more } In my business logic, there are rendering classes for each type public interface IPdfRenderer<T> { T Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s); } class ParagraphRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph paragraph; public ParagraphRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph p) { paragraph = p; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s) { var paragraph = s.AddParagraph(); // add text from paragraph etc return paragraph; } } public class TableRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Table table; public TableRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Table t) { table =t; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table Render(Section obj) { var table = obj.AddTable(); //fill table based on table } } I want to create a PDF page as : var document = new Document(); var section = document.AddSection();// section is a page in pdf var page = GetPage(1); // get a page from business classes foreach (var content in page.Content) { //var renderer = createRenderer(content); // // get Renderer based on Business type ?? // renderer.Render(section) } For createRenderer() i can use switch case/dictionary and return type. How can i get/create the renderer generically based on type ? How can I use factory or abstract factory here? Or which design pattern better suits this problem?

  Read the article

• Activator.CreateInstance(string) and Activator.CreateInstance<T>() difference

  - by Juan Manuel Formoso

  No, this is not a question about generics. I have a Factory pattern with several classes with internal constructors (I don't want them being instantiated if not through the factory). My problem is that CreateInstance fails with a "No parameterless constructor defined for this object" error unless I pass "true" on the non-public parameter. Example // Fails Activator.CreateInstance(type); // Works Activator.CreateInstance(type, true); I wanted to make the factory generic to make it a little simpler, like this: public class GenericFactory<T> where T : MyAbstractType { public static T GetInstance() { return Activator.CreateInstance<T>(); } } However, I was unable to find how to pass that "true" parameter for it to accept non-public constructors (internal). Did I miss something or it isn't possible?

  Read the article

• What design pattern is Codeigniter using?

  - by Nathan Adams

  Fairly straightforward question: I know that Codeigniter is a MVC framework - however what design pattern is Codeigniter using? From first look it seems like Facade, but I could be wrong.

  Read the article

• Practical rules for premature optimization

  - by DougW

  It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

  Read the article

• What are good strategies for organizing single class per query service layer?

  - by KallDrexx

  Right now my Asp.net MVC application is structured as Controller - Services - Repositories. The services consist of aggregate root classes that contain methods. Each method is a specific operation that gets performed, such as retrieving a list of projects, adding a new project, or searching for a project etc. The problem with this is that my service classes are becoming really fat with a lot of methods. As of right now I am separating methods out into categories separated by #region tags, but this is quickly becoming out of control. I can definitely see it becoming hard to determine what functionality already exists and where modifications need to go. Since each method in the service classes are isolated and don't really interact with each other, they really could be more stand alone. After reading some articles, such as this, I am thinking of following the single query per class model, as it seems like a more organized solution. Instead of trying to figure out what class and method you need to call to perform an operation, you just have to figure out the class. My only reservation with the single query per class method is that I need some way to organize the 50+ classes I will end up with. Does anyone have any suggestions for strategies to best organize this type of pattern?

  Read the article

• Separate functionality depending on Role in ASP.NET MVC

  - by Andrew Bullock

  I'm looking for an elegant pattern to solve this problem: I have several user roles in my system, and for many of my controller actions, I need to deal with slightly different data. For example, take /Users/Edit/1 This allows a Moderator to edit a users email address, but Administrators to edit a user's email address and password. I'd like a design for separating the two different bits of action code for the GET and the POST. Solutions I've come up with so far are: Switch inside each method, however this doesn't really help when i want different model arguments on the POST :( Custom controller factory which chooses a UsersController_ForModerators and UsersController_ForAdmins instead of just UsersController from the controller name and current user role Custom action invoker which choose the Edit_ForModerators method in a similar way to above Have an IUsersController and register a different implementation of it in my IoC container as a named instance based on Role Build an implementation of the controller at runtime using Castle DynamicProxy and manipulate the methods to those from role-based implementations Im preferring the named IoC instance route atm as it means all my urls/routing will work seamlessly. Ideas? Suggestions?

  Read the article

• actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

  - by maxmc

  hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

  Read the article

• Question about design (inheritance, polymorphism)

  - by Dan

  Hi, I have a question about a problem I'm struggling with. Hope you can bear with me. Imagine I have an Object class representing the base class of a hierarchy of physical objects. Later I inherit from it to create an Object1D, Object2D and Object3D classes. Each of these derived classes will have some specific methods and attributes. For example, the 3d object might have functionality to download a 3d model to be used by a renderer. So I'd have something like this: class Object {}; class Object1D : public Object { Point mPos; }; class Object2D : public Object { ... }; class Object3D : public Object { Model mModel; }; Now I'd have a separate class called Renderer, which simply takes an Object as argument and well, renders it :-) In a similar way, I'd like to support different kinds of renderers. For instance, I could have a default one that every object could rely on, and then provide other specific renderers for some kind of objects: class Renderer {}; // Default one class Renderer3D : public Renderer {}; And here comes my problem. A renderer class needs to get an Object as an argument, for example in the constructor in order to retrieve whatever data it needs to render the object. So far so good. But a Renderer3D would need to get an Object3D argument, in order to get not only the basic attributes but also the specific attributes of a 3d object. Constructors would look like this: CRenderer(Object& object); CRenderer3D(Object3D& object); Now how do I specify this in a generic way? Or better yet, is there a better way to design this? I know I could rely on RTTI or similar but I'd like to avoid this if possible as I feel there is probably a better way to deal with this. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• What is the "Dispatcher" design pattern?

  - by Ben Farmer

  What is the "dispatcher" pattern and how would I implement it in code? I have a property bag of generic objects and would like to have the retrieval delegated to a generic method. Currently, I have properties looking for a specific key in the bag. For example: private Dictionary<String, Object> Foo { get; set; } private const String WidgetKey = "WIDGETKEY"; public Widget? WidgetItem { get { return Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey) ? Foo[WidgetKey] as Widget: null; } set { if (Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey)) Foo[WidgetKey] = value; else Foo.Add(WidgetKey, value); } } It was suggested that this could be more generic with the "dispatcher" pattern, but I've been unable to find a good description or example. I'm looking for a more generic way to handle the property bag store/retrieve.

  Read the article

• Am I abusing Policies?

  - by pmr

  I find myself using policies a lot in my code and usually I'm very happy with that. But from time to time I find myself confronted with using that pattern in situations where the Policies are selected and runtime and I have developed habbits to work around such situations. Usually I start with something like that: class DrawArrays { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; class DrawElements { protected: void sendDraw() const; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public Policy { using Policy::sendDraw(); public: void render() const; }; When the policy is picked at runtime I have different choices of working around the situation. Different code paths: if(drawElements) { Vertices<DrawElements> vertices; } else { Vertices<DrawArrays> vertices; } Inheritance and virtual calls: class PureVertices { public: void render()=0; }; template<class Policy> class Vertices : public PureVertices, public Policy { //.. }; Both solutions feel wrong to me. The first creates an umaintainable mess and the second introduces the overhead of virtual calls that I tried to avoid by using policies in the first place. Am I missing the proper solutions or do I use the wrong pattern to solve the problem?

  Read the article

• Generating a URL pattern when provided a set of 5 or so URLs

  - by ryan

  Provided with a set of URLs, I need to generate a pattern, For example: http://www.buy.com/prod/disney-s-star-struck/q/loc/109/213724402.html http://www.buy.com/prod/samsung-f2380-23-widescreen-1080p-lcd-monitor-150-000-1-dc-8ms-1920-x/q/loc/101/211249863.html http://www.buy.com/prod/panasonic-nnh765wf-microwave-oven-countertop-1-6-ft-1250w-panasonic/q/loc/66357/202045865.html http://www.buy.com/prod/escape-by-calvin-klein-for-women-3-4-oz-edp-spray/q/loc/66740/211210860.html http://www.buy.com/prod/v-touch-8gb-mp3-mp4-2-8-touch-screen-2mp-camera-expandable-minisd-w/q/loc/111/211402014.html Pattern is http://www.buy.com/prod/[^~]/q/loc/[^~].html

  Read the article

• Singleton Properties

  - by coffeeaddict

  Ok, if I create a singleton class and expose the singleton object through a public static property...I understand that. But my singleton class has other properties in it. Should those be static? Should those also be private? I just want to be able to access all properties of my singleton class by doing this: MySingletonClass.SingletonProperty.SomeProperty2 Where SingletonProperty returns me the single singleton instance. I guess my question is, how do you expose the other properties in the singleton class..make them private and then access them through your public singleton static property?

  Read the article

• dynamic behavior of factory class

  - by manu1001

  I have a factory class that serves out a bunch of properties. Now, the properties might come either from a database or from a properties file. This is what I've come up with. public class Factory { private static final INSTANCE = new Factory(source); private Factory(DbSource source) { // read from db, save properties } private Factory(FileSource source) { // read from file, save properties } // getInstance() and getProperties() here } What's a clean way of switching between these behaviors based on the environment. I want to avoid having to recompile the class each time.

  Read the article

• Which is the better C# class design for dealing with read+write versus readonly

  - by DanM

  I'm contemplating two different class designs for handling a situation where some repositories are read-only while others are read-write. (I don't foresee any need to a write-only repository.) Class Design 1 -- provide all functionality in a base class, then expose applicable functionality publicly in sub classes public abstract class RepositoryBase { protected virtual void SelectBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void InsertBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void UpdateBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void DeleteBase() { // implementation... } } public class ReadOnlyRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } } public class ReadWriteRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } public void Insert() { InsertBase(); } public void Update() { UpdateBase(); } public void Delete() { DeleteBase(); } } Class Design 2 - read-write class inherits from read-only class public class ReadOnlyRepository { public void Select() { // implementation... } } public class ReadWriteRepository : ReadOnlyRepository { public void Insert() { // implementation... } public void Update() { // implementation... } public void Delete() { // implementation... } } Is one of these designs clearly stronger than the other? If so, which one and why? P.S. If this sounds like a homework question, it's not, but feel free to use it as one if you want :)

  Read the article

• Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

  - by ph0enix

  I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

  Read the article

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