|
Is the Czech Republic so sensible because everyone is so Praguematic?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Haveln't you run out of countries yet?
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
I have a Czech mate, he's quite a formidable opponent.
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a stale mate, he is quite boring.
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's because they drive slow in their Kia 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
My worst ever drink related incident involves [0] Prague and [1] Absinthe.
No more shall be said on the matter.
Ever.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
In the Absinthe of an explanation all that remains is speculation on your Czechered past
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
I use this when the instances are going to be resource heavy - maybe have a couple of images in them - and / or I want one example of each instance through the whole system.
So I have a private constructor, a static Dictionary containing all created instances, and a static method which fetches the instance:
private static Dictionary<string, MyClass> all = new Dictionary<string, MyClass>();
private MyClass(string name, List<string> data )
{
...
all.Add(name, this);
}
public static MyClass Get(string name, List<string> data)
{
if (all.ContainsKey(name)) return all[name];
return new MyClass(name, data);
}And it works really well. But ... is that a pattern? I hope not, I might have to stop using it ... 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a derivative of the singleton pattern, but you allow one instance per ID.
Wout
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of a singleton meets the concept of a self-referential thread pool, but then again naming patterns isn't exactly my strong suit. As far as to whether or not to stop using it, personally I'd have at least two classes that worked in tandem... a MyClassContainer (or pool or whatever) and a MyClass. Only for the sake of clarity and no other reason. But then again patterns aren't exactly my strong suit, so if it's an industry standard pattern then I'd be ok with it as is. Kinda curious what some of the peeps will say in reply to this.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
It's called the OriginalPattern
|
|
|
|
|
You had me going for a split second there.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I admit I googled ... mostly Beer companies, which may be appropriate.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Success.
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually a pretty good name for it, considering!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Joke aside, I believe there is a pattern called the flyweight pattern that is fitting the description.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALD rolls a three and reaches for his GOF book...
The closest I see is Proxy, but that's more about deferred instantiation.
As mentioned by others, it's also close to Singleton, yet possibly Singleton done right. (The standard Singleton Pattern is filth.)
Maybe this could be called the Library Pattern.
Anyway, I do that a lot too. Most recently as a store for RegEx instances which I use frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
Flyweight?
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: But ... is that a pattern?
Yes, it is. I would refer to it as the static OGDictionarySingleton.
OriginalGriff wrote: I hope not, I might have to stop using it
Why?
The definition of a pattern is a piece of reusable code that solves a given problem. Does your manager not allow for tested and documented solutions?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Because most patterns are a waste of time, but worshipped as the One True Holy Grail of Computing by those that learn it. And then force all applications they write to fit that pattern regardless of the appropriateness.
..you are interacting with the wrong kind of people. Regardless of your silver bullet, I will not follow in the procession.
"Most patterns"? Which are you referring to? They're used throughout the .NET Framework, from factories and adapters to decorators. Just my favourite, the memento, isn't included (afaik, which doesn't mean much).
A pattern is simply a formalized piece of code that solves a problem. You have a list of those in your intellisense, don't you? Those snippets are formalized pieces of code that follow a specific pattern and that have a name.
Now how does one take one of those templated pieces of code and make a holy grail of it? Is it some consultant, yammering to implement an event-receiver in C#?
Code needs to be kissable clean; no patterns "just" to show of that you know something, the simplest solution is always the preferred one. But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider.
..maybe I should just put my rambling in an article, as a lot of devs that I respect are not too fond of patterns for some weird reason. Tell me, do you vary your code to show a form, or does that happen to be another unnamed pattern that you repeat? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: But please, do follow the pattern of wrapping your connections and commands in a using-clause, do use parameterized queries, and please, use the factory-method that is included in the connection object to create your command. It saves a lot of time when rewriting to another provider.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic because there's not much there I agree with (except maybe the parametrised queries, even then ...) Using older dated systems/databases/external devices some of that is not even possible let alone sensible. But this is not really the correct forum for that and I'm off to bed anyway.
Installing Signature...
Do not switch off your computer.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: maybe I should just put my rambling in an article,
Why not? Do it... I really think it might bring a nice debate in the board
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: maybe I should just put my rambling in an article, as a lot of devs that I respect are not too fond of patterns
I am sure I would learn something valuable, if you did !
«While I complain of being able to see only a shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is now, since I'm not at a stage of development where I'm capable of seeing it.» Claude Levi-Strauss (Tristes Tropiques, 1955)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
