Design and Architecture

22-Dec-12 14:11

bugal wrote:
What is the best approach for client-server application?

FIRST, collect requirements.
SECOND, create the architecture and/or design. Which of these is needed depends on the requirements.
THIRD, based on the architecture/design decide what technologies to use.

bugal wrote:
or hard&complex ?

Very hard/complex when one skips the first two steps above.

How do you design this ?

Eytukan18-Dec-12 2:33

18-Dec-12 2:33

An object called MovableObject can move through different methods.
MoveByLegs, wheels & Wings. When we choose one method, i.e MoveByLegs and pass Legs arguments, the other two will be unused.

Should I design it like this:

C++

enum MoveType
{
MoveByLegs,
MoveByWheels,
MoveByWings
}

class MovableObject
{
List<leg> lstLegs;
List<Wheels> lstWheels;
List<Wing> lstWings;

MoveType m_Movetype;

EnableMovement(MoveType movetype_in, object obj_in)
{
m_Movetype = movetype_in;
switch (movetype_in)
{
case MoveByLegs:
lstLegs = List<Leg>(obj_in);
break;

case MoveByWheels:
lstWheels = List<Wheel>(obj_in);
break;

case MoveByWings:
lstWings = List<Wing>(obj_in);
break;
}

}

Move()
{
if(m_Movetype == MoveType.MoveByLegs)
{

//  Process lstLegs
}
similar case for MoveByWheels & Legs

}
}

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

Pete O'Hanlon18-Dec-12 2:47

Pete O'Hanlon

18-Dec-12 2:47

Hmmm, you're mixing and matching things a lot here. As you're creating movable "things", you should consider the fact that each one of these is a separate movable type. This indicates that you should consider the fact that you're using an enum and change it to something like this:

public abstract class MovableObject
{
  // Add base implementation
}

public class Legs : MovableObject
{
  // Do something
}

public class Wheels : MovableObject
{
  // Do something
}

And there you have it - it's a lot cleaner and simpler to work with OO features.

*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington

"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos

CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier

Eytukan18-Dec-12 2:54

18-Dec-12 2:54

Hmm let me explain it visually.

The movable object = An Egg.

Now you attach a set of legs, it walks through Legs.

If you attach a set of wheels, it rolls by wheels.

And when you attach a pair of wings, it flies by wings.

So We cannot inherit leg, wings, wheels from the Egg.

The Egg _has_ all these.. one at a time. Not all at the same time.

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

Pete O'Hanlon18-Dec-12 3:02

Pete O'Hanlon

18-Dec-12 3:02

My design still works - change MovableObject to MovableEgg in my example and you see that it still stands (so to speak). Consider this example:

public abstract MovableEgg
{
  public void Move();
}

public abstract EggWithLegs : MovableEgg
{
  public virtual void Move()
  {
    Console.WriteLine("I'm walking");
  }
}

public abstract EggWithWings : MovableEgg
{
  public virtual void Move()
  {
    Console.WriteLine("I'm flying");
  }
}

*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington

"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos

CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier

Lampridis Vasilis30-Dec-12 0:04

Lampridis Vasilis

30-Dec-12 0:04

I guess the egg is an object with many things in it other than how it moves. Does the way it movers affects other things, like graphics etc? If yes look for "component design pattern".

If it is just a different way of movement then you can use this:

Interface IMovementMethod
{
    public void Move(Egg AnEgg,...);
}
Class Egg
{
    public IMovementMethod MovementMethod {get; set;}
    public void Move(...)
    {
        MovementMethod.Move(this,...)
    }
}

This way you can change the MovementMethod property if you want to change the way it moves.

Eytukan30-Dec-12 18:00

30-Dec-12 18:00

Better example Here[^]

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

jschell18-Dec-12 8:14

18-Dec-12 8:14

VuNic wrote:
Should I design it like this:

Movement is an attribute not an entity.

So
Entity (not MovableObject) 'has' movement.

Thus objects would be
Entity
MovementWings
MovementLegs
MovementWheels.

And you set it by calling.
entity.setMovement(Movement)

The Movement itself is either enable/disabled (where 'enable' means to actually allow movement) so each Movement object would have a property to enable it. Then Entity could call that if it has Movement (if internal varible is not null.)

Please hold on

Eytukan18-Dec-12 18:59

18-Dec-12 18:59

I need to explain more about the requirement. I'll come back and roll them down soon. thanks for your replies.

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

Eytukan30-Dec-12 17:59

30-Dec-12 17:59

Better example Here[^]

Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy.

jschell31-Dec-12 9:12

Re: portability/deployment

31-Dec-12 9:12

Except of course that has nothing to do with movement.

portability/deployment

Member 838594911-Dec-12 4:39

Member 8385949

11-Dec-12 4:39

Hello: I'm working on a large database project that I currently have in VBA/Access 2007 and intend to put into VB.Net/Access 2007 as I think it might be a better idea but I'm not sure. This program is for a large law case where I will be required to deploy it by sending it out on disks to various other firms across the country. I'm a bit rusty with this so I want to know the best way to handle the solution. If all these other firms don't have Access, what other type of database should I use? What is the best practice for deployment?

jschell11-Dec-12 10:07

Re: portability/deployment

11-Dec-12 10:07

What does "large" mean? Presumably you mean a lot of data versus a lot of users.

Using .Net should eliminate the problem of them not having MS Access. MS Access is the GUI part with some other additionally functionality, but is not required to actually access the data. However testing is always a good idea.

Member 8385949 wrote:
If all these other firms don't have Access, what other type of database should I
use?

Alternatives really depend on exactly what the application is doing and what "large" means.

Mycroft Holmes16-Dec-12 11:59

Mycroft Holmes

16-Dec-12 11:59

Do not use Access, for the precise reason you have indicated, the client will potentially need the exact version of office you are using.

I would look at SQL Server CE, there is a 4gb limit but I suspect this would not be a problem.. There are also a number of other small, embedable databases available.

When completed and tested deploy using an installation project or package.

Let me emphasise Access is WRONG for this job!

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH

Re: portability/deployment

jschell17-Dec-12 8:40