Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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

  • Has anyone ever encountered a Monad Transformer in the wild?

    - by martingw
    In my area of business - back office IT for a financial institution - it is very common for a software component to carry a global configuration around, to log it's progress, to have some kind of error handling / computation short circuit... Things that can be modelled nicely by Reader-, Writer-, Maybe-monads and the like in Haskell and composed together with monad transformers. But there seem to some drawbacks: The concept behind monad transformers is quite tricky and hard to understand, monad transformers lead to very complex type signatures, and they inflict some performance penalty. So I'm wondering: Are monad transformers best practice when dealing with those common tasks mentioned above?

    Read the article

  • Is testability alone justification for dependency injection?

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    The advantages of DI, as far as I am aware, are: Reduced Dependencies More Reusable Code More Testable Code More Readable Code Say I have a repository, OrderRepository, which acts as a repository for an Order object generated through a Linq to Sql dbml. I can't make my orders repository generic as it performs mapping between the Linq Order entity and my own Order POCO domain class. Since the OrderRepository by necessity is dependent on a specific Linq to Sql DataContext, parameter passing of the DataContext can't really be said to make the code reuseable or reduce dependencies in any meaningful way. It also makes the code harder to read, as to instantiate the repository I now need to write new OrdersRepository(new MyLinqDataContext()) which additionally is contrary to the main purpose of the repository, that being to abstract/hide the existence of the DataContext from consuming code. So in general I think this would be a pretty horrible design, but it would give the benefit of facilitating unit testing. Is this enough justification? Or is there a third way? I'd be very interested in hearing opinions.

    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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Rails Full Engine using a Full Engine

    - by SirLenz0rlot
    I've got this full rails engine Foo with functionality X. I want to make another engine, engine Bar, that is pretty much the same, but override funcitonality x with y. (it basically does the same, but a few controller actions and views are differently implemented). (I might split this later in several mountable engines, but for now, this will be the setup: project Baz, using engine Bar, which uses engine Foo) I would like to know if there are any pitfalls. It doesn't seem like a pattern that is often used? Anybody else using this 'some sort of engine inheritance'?

    Read the article

  • Advice on Factory Method

    - by heath
    Using php 5.2, I'm trying to use a factory to return a service to the controller. My request uri would be of the format www.mydomain.com/service/method/param1/param2/etc. My controller would then call a service factory using the token sent in the uri. From what I've seen, there are two main routes I could go with my factory. Single method: class ServiceFactory { public static function getInstance($token) { switch($token) { case 'location': return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); break; case 'product': return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); break; case 'user' return new UserService(); break; default: return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } } or multiple methods: class ServiceFactory { public static function getLocationService() { return new StaticPageTemplateService('location'); } public static function getProductService() { return new DynamicPageTemplateService('product'); } public static function getUserService() { return new UserService(); } public static function getDefaultService($token) { return new StaticPageTemplateService($token); } } So, given this, I will have a handful of generic services in which I will pass that token (for example, StaticPageTemplateService and DynamicPageTemplateService) that will probably implement another factory method just like this to grab templates, domain objects, etc. And some that will be specific services (for example, UserService) which will be 1:1 to that token and not reused. So, this seems to be an ok approach (please give suggestions if it is not) for a small amount of services. But what about when, over time and my site grows, I end up with 100s of possibilities. This no longer seems like a good approach. Am I just way off to begin with or is there another design pattern that would be a better fit? Thanks. UPDATE: @JSprang - the token is actually sent in the uri like mydomain.com/location would want a service specific to loction and mydomain.com/news would want a service specific to news. Now, for a lot of these, the service will be generic. For instance, a lot of pages will call a StaticTemplatePageService in which the token is passed in to the service. That service in turn will grab the "location" template or "links" template and just spit it back out. Some will need DynamicTemplatePageService in which the token gets passed in, like "news" and that service will grab a NewsDomainObject, determine how to present it and spit that back out. Others, like "user" will be specific to a UserService in which it will have methods like Login, Logout, etc. So basically, the token will be used to determine which service is needed AND if it is generic service, that token will be passed to that service. Maybe token isn't the correct terminology but I hope you get the purpose. I wanted to use the factory so I can easily swap out which Service I need in case my needs change. I just worry that after the site grows larger (both pages and functionality) that the factory will become rather bloated. But I'm starting to feel like I just can't get away from storing the mappings in an array (like Stephen's solution). That just doesn't feel OOP to me and I was hoping to find something more elegant.

    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

  • Using free function as pseudo-constructors to exploit template parameter deduction

    - by Poita_
    Is it a common pattern/idiom to use free functions as pseudo-constructors to avoid having to explicitly specify template parameters? For example, everyone knows about std::make_pair, which uses its parameters to deduce the pair types: template <class A, class B> std::pair<A, B> make_pair(A a, B b) { return std::pair<A, B>(a, b); } // This allows you to call make_pair(1, 2), // instead of having to type pair<int, int>(1, 2) // as you can't get type deduction from the constructor. I find myself using this quite often, so I was just wondering if many other people use it, and if there is a name for this pattern?

    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

  • Design Pattern for Server Emulator

    - by adisembiring
    I wanna build server socket emulator, but I want implement some design pattern there. I will described my case study that I have simplified like these: My Server Socket will always listen client socket. While some request message come from the client socket, the server emulator will response the client through the socket. the response is response code. '00' will describe request message processed successfully, and another response code expect '00' will describe there are some error while processing the message request. IN the server there are some UI, this UI contain check response parameter such as. response code timeout interval While the server want to response the client message, the response code taken from input parameter response form UI check the timeout interval, it will create sleep thread and the interval taken from timeout interval input from UI. I have implement the function, but I create it in one class. I feel it so sucks. Can you suggest me what class / interface that I must create to refactor my code.

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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