|
Look for a granule that gets rid of hornworms.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
upgrade the bush to Win 11.
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone done anything with Contact Manager?
I have to extract some/most of the data from an obsolete installation and store it somewhere else so it can be accessed after we delete CM. I am trying to do automated extracts (it is encrypted in DB2 so direct access is not an option) and I was wondering if anyone has done anything similar? The version is 8.3 and I can't get anything later.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Rubber ducking here... 
I'm working on a project that has a form which the user must fill in to submit a request. This form is used for various request types (+- 4) and shares common functionality (about 70%) between them.
I have the choice of duplicating the form (UI and probably Logic) for the various request types or having one form with sections and columns that will be shown or hidden based on the request type. Either approach has pros and cons...
Duplication: More maintenance if the common sections / logic change. Each request type's form will need to be updated.
Complexity: Potentially many if else statements and more complex to understand and maintain e.g. changes in the common sections could break it for multiple request types.
Which approach would you use? Maybe there is a hybrid approach?
Edit: This is an Angular project, but I think the question applies to development in general.
modified 13-Oct-21 4:14am.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know how it fits in your dev environment, but I've had success with a hybrid approach.
Basically a couple of large include files that do all the scaffolding, UI layout etc.
Each form includes them, calls the setup routines with appropriate page titles, etc.
Then has its own logic to handle the fields specific to that form.
So, basically, abstracting into (one or more) separate files, the stuff that is common to all the forms.
hth
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on your stack, requirements, etc but in something like Angular, component composition would be a good solution to this problem. The idea being you have each of the specific components for the request types that deal with their specific stuff, and they include the common component in their template to handle common stuff, communicating with it through @Input and @Output bindings.
Of course this assumes the common component is actually common. If it just so happens that it's common right now then it's not really common and I'd go with duplication instead. Otherwise that common component will end up accruing so much special-behavior-spaghetti over time it'll become unmanageable.
Those are my initial thoughts at 5am at least. Reader beware 
|
|
|
|
|
I have a situation sounds almost the same. About 50 fill-in forms that has 80% common and 20% special...
I have this also in ASP.NET and also Angular...
I solved it using inheritance - a base form holds 80% of the code (part of which depends on settings overwritten by derivates(?))...
And 50 derivates to add the case specifics...
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing all the details, it seems I have to point the obvious: do whatever is easier for the user. Don’t let him wade through a long, complicated form just because it makes your code nicer. In the end, users’ time is more valuable than yours (at least because there are so many of them) and making them happy should be the most important thing. Without them your company would not survive and you’d be looking for a job.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for simplification, but I don't have a choice in how the form is structured and all the fields displayed are required. My question was aimed at the code layout / structure.
modified 12-Oct-21 7:08am.
|
|
|
|
|
Mircea Neacsu wrote: making them happy should be the most important thing
Except that sometime the most desired thing is to wipe them out totally 
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, but don’t we have the same love/hate relationship with many in our own families.
Seriously speaking, I’m a passionate advocate for a user centric point of view. I’ve seen too many programmers and ‘architects’ in their ivory tower looking with disdain to lowly users and forgetting our whole profession come in existence just to help these users. Can you imagine the people at MIT programming the Apollo guidance computer and saying “screw these astronauts, they are just some trained monkeys”?
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful what you wish for - we are all users, occasionally...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe a "user" has anything to do with the issue. It's the following programmers who are affected.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
The way the OP formulated the question led me to believe that he has a choice of showing a form with sections/fields that appear and disappear depending on different user selections vs showing different, simpler forms.
If that's not the case my comment does not apply.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
My comment still applies. What the user views is a result of an architectural/design decision; what a following programmer sees appears to be the subject of this question. Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter's response is, I believe, the correct one.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite probable you are right. That would make my answer a bit of a rant but it wasn't with bad intentions 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
see yourself in 1 year, what kind of psychopath will you be when you'll have to do changes in that code.
Refactor your code.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
That's definitely part of my consideration on choosing the approach
It's quite likely that another company will do the maintenance though due to an arrangement we have
|
|
|
|
|
I've successfully used a single dialog with all content and then injected the display and validation logic from a container.
It should give you the best of both worlds.
veni bibi saltavi
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome Back Mr. Vilmos.
Long without seeing you.
I hope everything is fine with you and your people.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Complexity is perhaps going to make it easier to extend.
Duplication will in all likelihood make it easier to debug.
I know it's the wrong answer from a software engineering point of view - but from the point of view of someone who spends a lot of time fixing defects on a huge code base I would go for duplication.
I have seen a lot of code that makes use of inheritance and quite frankly I have found it to at times be something of a nightmare.
Complexity is clever and is elegant but it can make tracking and fixing bugs a lot more difficult.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
GuyThiebaut wrote: Complexity is clever and is elegant but it can make tracking and fixing bugs a lot more difficult.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
That's when you're overdoing it.
Put everything common in a base file that you inherit. Duplicate the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
I would also favour composition over inheritance where possible.
So you could have a baseclass form that is very basic, then the implemented forms can perhaps use some form of builder to class to individually tailor those forms.
Using composition may make it easier to see what each form is built from.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Inheritance and specialization.
Maybe make the common sections into UserControls, etc.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
