Search Results

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

Page 65/133 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

  • Files mapping architecture

    - by user326198
    I need to know How I can achieve this goal by classes : we have two different applications in the company (App1 , App2) Appl can export xml with know items ( ID , Name) we need app2 to import this data but App2 display different items (CarID, CarName) and this items defined like this with the mapping info <CarID> <Mapping name="ID"/> </CarID> <CarNAme> <Mapping name="Name"/> </CarNAme>" How I can achieve this as classes or ARCHITECTURE , i will develop this with c# I need one interface because we may support different type of files not just xml

    Read the article

  • Why represent shopping carts and order invoices differently in a domain model?

    - by Todd
    I've built some shopping cart systems in the past, but I always designed them such that the final order invoice is just a shopping cart that has been marked as "purchased". All the logic for adding/removing/changing items in a cart is also the logic for the order. All data is stored in the same tables in the database. But it seems this is not the proper way to design an e-commerce site.. Can someone explain the benefit of separating the shopping cart from invoices in the domain model? It seems to me this would lead to a lot of duplicated code, an extra set of tables in the database, and make it harder to maintain in the event the system need to start accommodating more complicated orders (like specifying selected options for an item which may or may not change the price/availability/shipping time of the order). I'm assuming I just haven't seen the light, as every book and other example I see seems to separate these two seemingly similar concerns -- but I can't find any explanation as to the benefit of doing such! It's also the case in the systems that I design that changes are often made after the initial order is confirmed. It's not uncommon for items to be removed, replaced, or added afterwards (but prior to fulfillment).

    Read the article

  • What is the role of the Router Object in MVC based frameworks

    - by Saif Bechan
    In most MVC based framework I see a router object. If I look at it splits up the uri and decides what controller should be used, and which action should be fired. Even though this makes a lot of sense, I can not give this a place in the MVC patern. Is splitting up the uri not the job of the controller. And then the controller should just decide which class and function to run.

    Read the article

  • Should we avoid to use Object as the input parameter/ output value of a method?

    - by developer.cyrus
    Take Java syntax as an example, though the question itself is language independent. If the following snippet takes an object MyAbstractEmailTemplate as input argument in the method setTemplate, the class MyGateway will then become tightly-coupled with the object MyAbstractEmailTemplate, which lessens the re-usability of the class MyGateway. A compromise is to use dependency-injection to ease the instantiation of MyAbstractEmailTemplate. This might solve the coupling problem to some extent, but the interface is still rigid, hardly providing enough ?exibility to other developers/ applications. So if we only use primitive data type (or even plain XML in web service) as the input/ output of a method, it seems the coupling problem no longer exists. So what do you think? public class MyGateway { protected MyAbstractEmailTemplate template; publoc void setTemplate(MyAbstractEmailTemplate template) { this.template = template; } }

    Read the article

  • How to properly dispose of an object

    - by VoodooChild
    Hi Guys, I am experiencing something weird and have a workaround already, but I don't think I understood it well. If I call the Method below numerous times within a class: public void Method() { Foo a = new Foo(); a.Delegate1Handler = ViewSomething(); } So I am reinitializing "a" every time but for some reason a.Delegate1Handler is still around from the previous initialization, and therefore ViewSomething() is called again and again and again.... I feel like I am forgetting something critical here? Foo's guts look like: public delegate void Delegate1(T t); public Delegate1 Delegate1Handler { get; set; }

    Read the article

  • Passing arguments between classes - use public properties or pass a properties class as argument?

    - by devoured elysium
    So let's assume I have a class named ABC that will have a list of Point objects. I need to make some drawing logic with them. Each one of those Point objects will have a Draw() method that will be called by the ABC class. The Draw() method code will need info from ABC class. I can only see two ways to make them have this info: Having Abc class make public some properties that would allow draw() to make its decisions. Having Abc class pass to draw() a class full of properties. The properties in both cases would be the same, my question is what is preferred in this case. Maybe the second approach is more flexible? Maybe not? I don't see here a clear winner, but that sure has more to do with my inexperience than any other thing. If there are other good approaches, feel free to share them. Here are both cases: class Abc1 { public property a; public property b; public property c; ... public property z; public void method1(); ... public void methodn(); } and here is approach 2: class Abc2 { //here we make take down all properties public void method1(); ... public void methodn(); } class Abc2MethodArgs { //and we put them here. this class will be passed as argument to //Point's draw() method! public property a; public property b; public property c; ... public property z; } Also, if there are any "formal" names for these two approaches, I'd like to know them so I can better choose the tags/thread name, so it's more useful for searching purposes. That or feel free to edit them.

    Read the article

  • C++ error message output format

    - by sub
    If I want to trigger an error in my interpreter I call this function: Error( ErrorType type, ErrorSeverity severity, const char* msg, int line ); However, with that I can only output Name error: Undefined variable in line 1 instead of Name error: Undefined variable 'someVariableName' in line 1 I'm working entirely with strings (except for the error messages as they all are constant at the moment), so sprintf won't work. What is the best way to create an efficient error function that can output a constant message combined with a string that describes which object, e.g.: a non-existing variable, triggered the error?

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern for this ?

    - by ytrewq
    I have a component that needs to call a specific service depending on the input it receives. So my component has to look at the input and based on a configuration that says "for this input call this service with this data" needs to call the proper service. The services have a common signature method and a specific one (each). I thought about an abstract class that includes the signatures for all three methods. The implementation for the two services will override all three methods (throwing NotImplementedException for the methods that are not supported by current service). A component that could be initialized with a map (that for each input type will have the type of the service to be called) will also be defined. Do you have a better approach to cope this scenario ?

    Read the article

  • Best Design Pattern to Implement while Mapping Actions in MVC

    - by FidEliO
    What could be the best practices of writing the following case: We have a controller which based on what paths users take, take different actions. For example: if user chooses the path /path1/hello it will say hello. If a user chooses /path1/bye?name="Philipp" it will invoke sayGoodBye() and etc. I have written a switch statement inside the controller which is simple, however IMO not efficient. What are the best way to implement this, considering that paths are generally String. private void takeAction() { switch (path[1]) { case "hello": //sayHello(); break; case "bye": //sayBye(); break; case "case3": //Blah(); break; ... } }

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton design pattern

    - by Artem Barger
    Recently I've bumped into a realization/implementation of the Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked like this (I have adopted it from the real life example): // a lot of methods are omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that the instance field is initiated on the heap. That means there is a memory allocation. What is completely unclear for me is when exactly the memory is going to be deallocated? Or is there a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in the implementation. My main question is, how do I implement it in the right way?

    Read the article

  • Is this a problem typically solved with IOC?

    - by Dirk
    My current application allows users to define custom web forms through a set of admin screens. it's essentially an EAV type application. As such, I can't hard code HTML or ASP.NET markup to render a given page. Instead, the UI requests an instance of a Form object from the service layer, which in turn constructs one using a several RDMBS tables. Form contains the kind of classes you would expect to see in such a context: Form= IEnumerable<FormSections>=IEnumerable<FormFields> Here's what the service layer looks like: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenForm(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } } Everything works splendidly (for a while). The UI is none the wiser about what sections/fields exist in a given form: It happily renders the Form object it receives into a functional ASP.NET page. A few weeks later, I get a new requirement from the business: When viewing a non-editable (i.e. read-only) versions of a form, certain field values should be merged together and other contrived/calculated fields should are added. No problem I say. Simply amend my service class so that its methods are more explicit: public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId){ //construct and a concrete implementation of Form //apply additional transformations to the form } } Again everything works great and balance has been restored to the force. The UI continues to be agnostic as to what is in the Form, and our separation of concerns is achieved. Only a few short weeks later, however, the business puts out a new requirement: in certain scenarios, we should apply only some of the form transformations I referenced above. At this point, it feels like the "explicit method" approach has reached a dead end, unless I want to end up with an explosion of methods (OpenFormViewingScenario1, OpenFormViewingScenario2, etc). Instead, I introduce another level of indirection: public interface IFormViewCreator{ void CreateView(Form form); } public class MyFormService: IFormService{ public Form OpenFormForEditing(int formId){ //construct and return a concrete implementation of Form } public Form OpenFormForViewing(int formId, IFormViewCreator formViewCreator){ //construct a concrete implementation of Form //apply transformations to the dynamic field list return formViewCreator.CreateView(form); } } On the surface, this seems like acceptable approach and yet there is a certain smell. Namely, the UI, which had been living in ignorant bliss about the implementation details of OpenFormForViewing, must possess knowledge of and create an instance of IFormViewCreator. My questions are twofold: Is there a better way to achieve the composability I'm after? (perhaps by using an IoC container or a home rolled factory to create the concrete IFormViewCreator)? Did I fundamentally screw up the abstraction here?

    Read the article

  • how to implement this observer pattern?

    - by lethal
    Hello. I have 4 classes, that describe state diagram. Node, Edge, ComponentOfNode, ComponentOfEdge. ComponentOfEdge compounds from ComponentsOfNode. Node can have 0..n outgoing edges. Edge can have only 2 nodes. Edge should be able to offer ComponentOfNode, but only from nodes that Edge has, in form ComponentOfEdge. The user can change ComponentsOfNode. I need this change spreads to all Edge. Hw to do it? I expect the observer should be used. Can you give me example in pseudocode please?

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to create a debugging web page for a computation in Java?

    - by Shooshpanchick
    I'm developing a website that uses some complex computations (NLP-related). My customer wants to have "debugging" webpages for some of these computations where he can run them with arbitrary input and see all the intermediate results that occur during computation. Before this request all of the computations were encapsulated in beans and intermediate results were logged into general log. What is the best way to capture all these results on Java level to render them as webpage?

    Read the article

  • C++ Iterator Pipelining Designs

    - by Kirakun
    Suppose we want to apply a series of transformations, int f1(int), int f2(int), int f3(int), to a list of objects. A naive way would be SourceContainer source; TempContainer1 temp1; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(temp1), f1); TempContainer2 temp2; transform(temp1.begin(), temp1.end(), back_inserter(temp2), f2); TargetContainer target; transform(temp2.begin(), temp2.end(), back_inserter(target), f3); This first solution is not optimal because of the extra space requirement with temp1 and temp2. So, let's get smarter with this: int f123(int n) { return f3(f2(f1(n))); } ... SourceContainer source; TargetContainer target; transform(source.begin(), source.end(), back_inserter(target), f123); This second solution is much better because not only the code is simpler but more importantly there is less space requirement without the intermediate calculations. However, the composition f123 must be determined at compile time and thus is fixed at run time. How would I try to do this efficiently if the composition is to be determined at run time? For example, if this code was in a RPC service and the actual composition--which can be any permutation of f1, f2, and f3--is based on arguments from the RPC call.

    Read the article

  • Javascript object encapsulation that tracks changes

    - by Raynos
    Is it possible to create an object container where changes can be tracked Said object is a complex nested object of data. (compliant with JSON). The wrapper allows you to get the object, and save changes, without specifically stating what the changes are Does there exist a design pattern for this kind of encapsulation Deep cloning is not an option since I'm trying to write a wrapper like this to avoid doing just that. The solution of serialization should only be considered if there are no other solutions. An example of use would be var foo = state.get(); // change state state.update(); // or state.save(); client.tell(state.recentChange()); A jsfiddle snippet might help : http://jsfiddle.net/Raynos/kzKEp/ It seems like implementing an internal hash to keep track of changes is the best option. [Edit] To clarify this is actaully done on node.js on the server. The only thing that changes is that the solution can be specific to the V8 implementation.

    Read the article

  • Question about a possible design pattern...

    - by Aftershock
    I have such a design in my mind.... My aim is to reuse the program with some features included and without some features. What is it called in the literature? class feature1 { void feature1function1(); void feature1function2(); } class feature2 { void feature2function1(); void feature2function2(); } class program: feature1, feature2 { void function1() { feature2function1(); } void function2() { feature1function1(); feature2function1(); } void execute() { function1(); function2(); } }

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • In Java how instance of and type cast(i.e (ClassName)) works on proxy object ?

    - by learner
    Java generates a proxy class for a given interface and provides the instance of the proxy class. But when we type cast the proxy object to our specific Object, how java handles this internally? Is this treated as special scenario? For example I have class 'OriginalClass' and it implements 'OriginalInterface', when I create proxy object by passing 'OriginalInterface' interface java created proxy class 'ProxyClass' using methods in the provided interface and provides object of this class(i.e ProxyClass). If my understanding is correct then can you please answer following queries 1) When I type cast object of ProxyClass to my class OriginalClass this works, but how java is allowing this? Same in case of instace of? 2) As my knowledge java creates a proxy class only with the methods, but what happen when I try to access attributes on this object? 3) Only interface methods are getting implemented in Proxy, but what happens when I try to access a method which not in interface and only mentioned in the class? Thanks, Student

    Read the article

  • What elegant method callback design should be used ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, I'm surprised this question wasn't asked before on SO (well, at least I couldn't find it). Have you ever designed a method-callback pattern (something like a "pointer" to a class method) in C++ and, if so, how did you do it ? I know a method is just a regular function with some hidden this parameter to serve as a context and I have a pretty simple design in mind. However, since things are often more complex than they seem to, I wonder how our C++ gurus would implement this, preferably in an elegant and standard way. All suggestions are welcome !

    Read the article

  • Using an embedded DB (SQLite / SQL Compact) for Message Passing within an app?

    - by wk1989
    Hello, Just out of curiosity, for applications that have a fairly complicated module tree, would something like sqlite/sql compact edition work well for message passing? So if I have modules containing data such as: \SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC, \SubSystemB\SubSubSystemC\ModuleA\ModuleDataX Using traditional message passing/routing, you have to go through intermediate modules in order to pass a message to ModuleB to request say ModuleDataC. Instead of doing that, if we we simply store "\SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC" in a sqlite database, getting that data is as simple as a sql query and needs no routing and passing stuff around. Has anyone done this before? Even if you haven't, do you foresee any issues & performance impact? The only concern I have right now would be the passing of custom types, e.g. if ModuleDataC is a custom data structure or a pointer, I'll need some way of storing the data structure into the DB or storing the pointer into the DB. Thanks, JW EDIT One usage case I haven't thought about is when you want to send a message from ModuleA to ModuleB to get ModuleB to do something rather than just getting/setting data. Is it possible to do this using an embedded DB? I believe callback from the DB would be needed, how feasible is this?

    Read the article

  • Doubleton Pattern Implementation

    - by Pierreten
    I'm leveraging the Doubleton Pattern from this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/architecture/designpattern_doubleton.aspx in my own code. I think it makes things a lot easier since the Singleton only provides one instance, but I get two with this pattern. I was wondering if it would make sense to have it implement an interface so I can inject it into my domain layer.

    Read the article

  • Instantiating and referencing models in MVC

    - by fig-gnuton
    In MVC, should each model be a globally accessible singleton accessible to any view/controller? Or should the models be singletons that are dependency injected into any component that requires them? Or should a new model instance be created for each component that needs one, in which case events would be used to propagate changes across model instances of the same class?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >