|
Thanks for reply,
I was more concerned about Single solution vs Web App + mobile web app approach
Yes IE is going to be challenging specially when we are building a business application.
but question is would single solution be better over other frameworks like Kendo, ExtJS etc
Sagar
|
|
|
|
|
As I said, the final design will largely depend upon the service model and requirements.
For instance, if your app requires user to be connected to internet to be able to use it... then it might as well serve better to have a web app. Its not possible to comment which one will serve better w/o knowing what functionality they are going to have.
Biggest Adv of HTML5 app is a uniform code-base and you will not have to worry (about user upgrades) when adding/upgrading to new features.
A native app allows you to store information locally which can be retrieved easily in offline mode.
HTML5, with local storage, does allow data storage... but that may not be as much as native app (I'm not very sure about data storage details as I haven't used them for HTML5 app)
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against reality!!!
http://aniruddhaloya.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
If it's SaaS the web is really your only option. To compete with others in the mobile device environment and provide a SaaS, you'll need to be providing something unique. The mobile market is competitive and users typically have short attention spans. Unless its a service users can't get elsewhere, it has to offer a platform-specific UX to succeed.
Regarding mobile development, from my experience if you focus on one mobile platform and develop the app to its potential. Writing for the second platform is a lot cheaper because, to a larger extent, the problem domain has been resolved.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
I am working on an SDI application (MFC) using the standard DOC/View/Mainframe created by Visual Studio 10. The application requires a special type of "Switchboard" consisting of basically CButtons.
For whatever reason, I do not want to place the buttons in a conventional Dialog Box, but rather have them as children of DOC or View or Mainframe.
This is my first time using DOC/View/Mainframe and my question is: Who should be the parent of these buttons, or does it matter at all from a program architecture convention standpoint?
I am sure that Microsoft has this detailed, but I haven't a clue as to where to start looking.
Thanks,
Barry 
|
|
|
|
|
The view would ow the buttons. The document is, effectively, your model, so it will contain any data that you need.
|
|
|
|
|
Kindly find the below doubt and do his needful on the earliest of tomorrow..... Thx
Make a simple Web form for registration of students and courses. The form should accept first name, last name, faculty number, university (drop-down list), specialty (drop-down list) and a list of courses (multi-select list). Use the appropriate Web server controls. After registration you should display summary of the entered information as formatted HTML. use dynamically generated tags (h1, p, …).
|
|
|
|
|
1) We do not do your homework: it is set for a reason. It is there so that you think about what you have been told, and try to understand it. It is also there so that your tutor can identify areas where you are weak, and focus more attention on remedial action.
Try it yourself, you may find it is not as difficult as you think!
2) Wrong location - try posting questions in appropriate forum or on QA - but don't expect an answer in it's present form. See (1) above.
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
Take a look at what I wrote in the ASP.NET forum, then add repost and wrong forum.
Again, this is only urgent to you, stop spamming all the forums with your homework.
|
|
|
|
|
Doubt not found exception.
What I have found instead is piece of work that is supposed to be done by you and you only.
There is not doubt about that.
Sorry!
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine."
Ross Callon, The Twelve Networking Truths, RFC1925
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys,
Nooby question... can anyone tell me what coding language this is? I found the source online and I would like to compile it and run it... thanks!
USER=""
PASS=""
if [ -z "$PASS" ]; then echo "You need to set your username and password in the script."; exit 1; fi
wget -q -O .login.html --post-data="username=$USER&password=$PASS&btn_submit=Login" --save-cookies=.cookies.txt --keep-session-cookies --referer
grep "Image Validation" .login.html >/dev/null && echo "Error: You need to log out/in in a web browser" && exit 1
wget -q -O - > out.txt
TEXT=`cat out.txt | grep "Generated String:" | cut -f 2 -d : | cut -f 1 -d "<" | tr -d [:blank:]`
SHIFT=`cat out.txt | grep "Generated String:" | cut -f 3 -d : | cut -f 1 -d "<" | tr -d [:blank:]`
echo "If this doesn't work, you'll need to add this separator:"
echo $TEXT
for EACH in `echo $TEXT | tr "," "\n" | tr ")" "\n" | tr "#" "\n"| tr "'" "\n"| tr "." "\n"| tr "&" "\n"| tr "(" "\n"| tr "!" "\n"| tr "%" "\n"| tr "$" "\n"| tr "+" "\n"| tr "-" "\n"| tr "/" "\n"| tr "*" "\n"| tr "@" "\n"| tr "^" "\n"| tr "\"" "\n"`
do
let EACH=$EACH-$SHIFT
STRING="$STRING$(printf "\\$(printf "%03o" $EACH)")"
done
echo The string is $STRING
wget -q -O - --post-data="solution=$STRING" --load-cookies=.cookies.txt --keep-session-cookies --referer > out2.txt
grep "answer is wrong" out2.txt | html2text
grep -i successfully out2.txt | html2text
grep -i "already completed" out2.txt | html2text
rm .login.html; rm .cookies.txt; rm out.txt; rm out2.txt
|
|
|
|
|
It's a script, maybe a bash script
|
|
|
|
|
Prikarna wrote: maybe a bash script
Really likely considering that the following is at the top...
#!/bin/bash
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I just realized that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a batch file command, you can run at once and all will get executed
|
|
|
|
|
Have project that requires fix protocol over tcp and encryption, need userinterface gui made as well. skype me at: silverbuyer or email me canadametalsauction@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
Recently I fell in love with dependency injection and interface based programming. Though, as a beginner, I couldn’t grasp all the advantages of this methodology, I greatly influenced in the discipline we can bring into the project to handle the army of objects.
What I learned that by using interface based programming, components are expose their functionalities only though an interface. At first I designed as like below.
namespace Component1
{
public interface Interface1
{
void Func();
}
public class Class1 : Interface1
{
public void Func() { }
}
public static class IOContainer
{
public static void Register<TInterface, TConcrete>() { }
public static TInterface Resolve<TInterface>() { }
}
}
One drawback I found here that someone can directly create objects of Class1 and use its functions. This will break the essence of interface based programming. So I redesigned it like below.
namespace Component1
{
public interface Interface1
{
void Func();
}
internal class Class1 : Interface1
{
public void Func() { }
}
public static class IOContainer
{
internal static void Register<TInterface, TConcrete>() { }
public static void Register()
{
Register<Interface1, Class1>();
}
public static TInterface Resolve<TInterface>() { }
}
}
This will work fine. So no one can access the implementations from outside the assembly. They have to call Register function and Resolve function to create objects. The component will use only in one discipline. But I fell I lost flexibility. Outsider can't determine which class should resolve at run time. Both methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Kindly help me to choose a suitable method.
Thanks in advance,
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Explicit implementation might help!? Do i make sense here?!
public class Foo : ILazy
{
void ILazy.Sleep()
{
}
}
public interface ILazy
{
void Sleep();
}
var foo = new Foo();
((ILazy)foo).Sleep();
Hope it helps!!
|
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that all things should be done in moderation.
Not everything needs interfaces and there is very seldom a need to "protect" code from users. In a very large number of cases code that is using other code will always directly create other classes, because it is expedient and no other requirements exist.
However to solve a 'creation' problem one uses a Factory Pattern. This of course supposes that there is a problem in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Not everything needs interfaces and there is very seldom a need to "protect" code from users. In a very large number of cases code that is using other code will always directly create other classes, because it is expedient and no other requirements exist.
Though I agree with you that not all the code are need not protected, still i have to implement interfaces in core areas. This is because the reason to implement interfaces is to develop extendable, maintainable and testable code.
jschell wrote: However to solve a 'creation' problem one uses a Factory Pattern. This of course supposes that there is a problem in the first place.
I didnt get this. Can you please explain it?
|
|
|
|
|
SSEAR wrote: develop extendable, maintainable and testable code.
Those are feel good subjective terms, especially the first two.
One can create code using interfaces that meet none of those.
SSEAR wrote: Can you please explain it?
Google the following term with the quotes
"Factory Pattern"
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Those are feel good subjective terms, especially the first two.
One can create code using interfaces that meet none of those.
So you think dependency injection does not solve these issues?
|
|
|
|
|
SSEAR wrote: So you think dependency injection does not solve these issues?
First one can write code using dependency injection which fails all of the issues you listed.
Second the terms you posted are almost always used subjectively, in that there are no objective measurements in place to verify success or failure.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand what the problem with allowing users to create instances of their classes directly is. (Users in this case meaning users of the framework; that could well be you as well.)
The important thing about interface based programming is that the core code, including the dependency injection mechanism if you want such a thing, deal with the interfaces. Methods in your core logic should take and return interfaces, not concrete subclasses; this makes them easily mockable and re-usable. But there's no reason to try to prevent someone from declaring a Class1 which implements one of the public interfaces and creating it directly; sometimes that's actually what you need in a specific case.
You should advise your users (again, that might be yourself or other team members) that generally it's better to use the interfaces and get a resolved instance from the container, but that should be 'enforced' with coder discipline, not a technical solution.
A final point is that it is essentially impossible to provide an extensible container, which allows registration of arbitrary classes, and also to prevent people instantiating those classes directly, because the container needs to use a constructor to resolve a request. You could require that a factory class is passed instead, but that's abstraction for the sake of it, and if it's a user specified factory, they can just call the factory method directly anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: I don't understand what the problem with allowing users to create instances of their classes directly is. (Users in this case meaning users of the framework; that could well be you as well.)
Last month I developed a Microsoft Exchange Server wrapper component. Interfaces will expose methods and there is a wrapper class to resolve the implementation using an IOC container. That was for an old version of exchange server. I uploaded the code to the code database. Few days later the Exchange Server upgraded and there was a requirement to implement the new API. So I created new classes for the newer version and also changed the wrapper class to register new classes with IOC container. But some developers from other projects directly access the classes of old version so that they lost the new changes. As you said I can advise them to follow this discipline. But I feel it is a burden for me. I have to spend my precious time to watch them. Hope you understand my situation.
|
|
|
|