|
Keep the GUI classes separate. I prefer your original code over the proposed change.
What if you want to build a console version of this app where you pass a wild card and an operation? Keeping the GUI separate would allow this to work without hassle.
<cmd> 2021*.pdf -trim first last blank
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the sanity check!  Yes, keeping the GUI classes separate makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
I have a question about creating a software documentation. I hope I'm at the right place .
The problem:
I have to document a DB application before the implementation. The document must address not only the developers, but also other departments (who do not need to know the technology behind it; mainly non-developers). The tool doesn't need to support code generation (beside 8., that is optional); i.e. there is no need to generate HTML/JavaScript/CSS/etc. The document has to serve 2 main goals:
1. presenting the UI-prototype also for non-developers
2. collecting every name of the DB-fields used by the specific UI-elements of the mockup, and describing the behavior of the final application (in a plain text but with a reference to the specific DB-field)
If the UI-prototype has been approved, the implementation will begin using the name of the DB-fields and description of the behavior, collected in 2. .
I'm searching for a documentation/modelling/prototyping tool (I'm not sure what is the correct term for it) with the following abilities:
1. specify the DB-fields by name.
2. create mockups (simple GUI pages) and if you click (or mouse over, ...) on the individual elements (like input-fields, buttons, etc.) in the mockup, you should see the associated DB-field. An example: someone defines a mockup for the search with 2 fields that you can search for (ID, name).
3. you should be able to describe actions (in plain text). E.g. a mockup has the button Delete to delete elements from the DB that are older than 1 month. The description text should be able to refer to the DB-field affected by this operation. The text would be: "delete all items from {Mytable.Orders} that are older than 1 month.". Everything between {} is the name of the DB-field. The purpose of this is to ensure that if this field is renamed in the document, then it SHOULD be renamed in the description text also.
4. you should be able to define roles. E.g. the mockup ABC defines 3 DB-fields if you have the role of Admin. But if you have the role of User, then this mockup should ONLY define 1 DB-field. I would like to use the same mockup for Admin and for User .
5. the whole document should be searchable for certain DB-fields (to see in which mockups this field is used).
6. the tool should be free and run on at least one of the platforms: Windows / Linux / Web.
7. the whole document (with mockups, DB-field assignments) have to be saved in a format (PDF or HTML / JPG, or similar).
8. it would be nice if you could save the assignment of the DB-fields in JSON.
9. you should be able to describe the transition between mockups. If you e.g. click on Button A on the mockup ABC, the mockup DEF gets opened.
10. if you add a new DB-field to a mockup, a warning should appear if this DB-field is already being used in another mockup.
11. it would be nice (doesn't necessarily have to be) if you could display sample data in the mockups. E.g: you enter "Test" as "Name" in the previously defined search mockup, then a list will be displayed on this mockup (= creating an interactiv mockup).
It would be good if the first 7 feature could be fulfilled.
Thanx for any hint, or recommendation.
|
|
|
|
|
I usually "start" with spread sheets for the db fields / tables when I have to do a "walkthrough", and go from there. I guess you start be looking for a free spread sheet app.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
The only tools to support that sort of functionality come with enterprise type pricing ie $10,000s+, wait make that a bloody big plus!
The bank I worked for used one such tool and it required a consultant to set it up and a dedicated team to maintain it. Even then it did not do all the requirements you have posted.
I always found a prototype (wpf) to be the better solution. Most of my prototypes were converted to production systems. I once did a PT in 3 months that then took a team of 10+ developers over a year to turn into a production web system.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Using Windows-Presentation-Foundation could be also a good idea.
Do you allow me some additonal questions ?
That means, you design a Windows-GUI, generate code (C# i guess) and compile it to an executable ?
Do i need deep programming knowledge for that ?
Did you use Visual Studio to make the prototype ?
The tool you used, is it possible to export the prototype to a combination of screenshots/XML/text/... ?
Thanx in advance,
Daniel
|
|
|
|
|
I see you have limited knowledge of the environment, WPF is a desktop user interface, like winforms. It is NOT a presentation tool like powerpoint or the myriad of other such tools.!
And yes you will need a deep knowledge of c# and WPF to achieve a prototype within a reasonable timeframe.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Given a structure of DB -> DAL -> Web API -> client (Blazor and possibly mobile)
Do the DAL and Web API need to be asynchronous?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
With a client in the picture, synchronous implies sitting at a locked screen. With perhaps not even a progress bar.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Anything that calls out to an external system, whether that's a DB query, a network request, or even accessing files on disk, should really be asynchronous. Why tie up a thread waiting for a request to complete when you could let the OS tell you when it's finished and let your thread get on with something else instead?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah when one applies a few brain cells the answer is obvious - browser paints the screen and then fills the data control 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
I loathe synchronous design for the reasons described in the "Synchronous Messaging" section of this article[^].
|
|
|
|
|
I have a WPF app that has a a BL and A DAL.
I'm finding that I have code that I need to call from multiple places, such as computing the Sales Tax for a Purchase Order. I would need to do this in the DAL when I retrieve a PO, and also in the UI when creating a PO.
So, I thought that putting such code in the BL is a good place as any, and also about creating a Service Layer that just contains common, non-business logic.
I'd like some feed back.
Thanks
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm working on a WPF app. My UI, BL, and DAL are all in one solution and each assembly is installed locally on each user's PC.
I typically have code like this in my ViewModel SaveChanges:
private void SaveChanges()
{
foreach (var job in Jobs.Where(x => x.IsDirty).ToList())
{
if (job.Id == 0)
{
DAL.AddJob(job);
}
else
{
DAL.UpdateJob(job);
}
}
foreach (var deletedId in deletedJobIds)
{
DAL.DeleteJob(deletedId);
}
}
Functionally this works, but it has some underlying issues:
- It requires looping over each changed entity and calling either Add or Update. Then I have to call delete.
- At some point soon I will need to move the BL & DAL to a Web API.
So I'm considering the following change. The DAL methods would look like:
private void SaveChanges()
{
DAL.SaveJobs(Jobs.Where(x => x.IsDirty).ToList(), _deletedJobIs);
}
In a stateful Windows app, each entity is an object ref so I can set the newly added Id's in the DAL and it will be available back in the VM.
But if I use the single AddUpdate method in a WebAPI, how to I get back the Id's of the newly added items?
One of the primiary goals of these changes is is to reduce the amount of calls the the back end.
I'd like to hear suggestions on best preactices for this.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
Ya can't fix stupid.
modified 9-Aug-21 13:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming your deleted ids are no longer required you could change your return from void to a list of new objects.
I always returned a list of both updated and new objects which are often views but then I use the database far more extensively.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
DL.InsertUpdate(Job job, Transaction trans) could check if the id = 0 and decide to insert or update if >0.
DL.Insert(Job job, Transaction trans)
DL.Update(Job job, Transaction trans)
I would also create a property on Job of
Job.ReqDelete which
DL.Delete(Job job, Transaction trans) would act on.
Then a public method of
DL.SaveJobChanges(IList<Job> jobs, Transaction trans) .
Another note, all the changes should be wrapped in a transaction, and handle errors so it's all or nothing, other wise the user could have some updates or deletes or insets fail. It's easier for a user and as a process to handle all or nothing.
Schneider
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like a silly question but it can't be just a really good programmer. It can't be just someone who knows what a service layer and generic repository pattern or GOF patterns can it?
If your an Architect does that also mean you know something about the code, the infrastructure, Deployment too? Do you take into account testability?
Or is an architect just someone who knows good SOLID coding practices and such?
<a href=http://www.tadmcclellan.com>TadMcClellan.Com
|
|
|
|
|
The difference between a poor systems designer and a good one. And since you can't architect a system without knowing the business, it's also the difference between a good analyst and a poor one. And in order to come up with a feasible solution, you also need to be technically competent. And in order to properly communicate your thoughts, you also need to be able to write and talk coherently.
Not something one just learns from books; you have to have lived it; and probably have at least one system under your belt to qualify.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Before I retired I was designated a Developer/Architect but only for desktop systems. With 30+ years developing desktop solutions and 15 years in the finance industry I had a good domain knowledge.
I was however totally useless when it came to major systems based on things like Hadoop, AI and analytics (read Python). I could help with a good design but did not have a handle on the technology.
Tad McClellan wrote: you know something about the code, the infrastructure, Deployment too?
Yes and not just "something", a deep knowledge of these is critical.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
my team members are trying to cross compile a huge codebase (4100 forms, 9300 files)
from Power++ (an old C/C++ IDE made by Whatcom/Sybase ano 1999) to C#.
This codebase is very old and has a lot of issues with quality (copy and paste everywhere, spaghetti code, code smells, ...).
Everything started with a tool that converts Power++ forms to WinForms.
(that worked surprisingly well)
But now they want to convert the whole C++ codebase to C# (there is still some manual work needed to make the C# code compile).
They think if everything is translated to C# their productivity will rise and they have a lot of time to improve the code.
What do you think about this method ?
Is it a good idea to build a 'new' software completely on legacy code ?
modified 8-Jul-21 17:29pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You can go and rewrite the app all you want. No, you're not going to find a "conversion tool" to convert the code.
The language isn't going to make you magically more productive. There's plenty of stuff in the .NET BCL that will save you from having to "re-invent the wheel" in places in your code, but the real benefit to productivity is going to be how you write your new code and your design choices.
This is your opportunity to simplify your code-base and fix stuff in your original code by rewriting it from scratch.
|
|
|
|
|
sx2008 wrote: They think if everything is translated to C# their productivity will rise
Straight up management thinking, an application badly written 2 decades ago, run through a n% successful converter and expect the users to be more productive.
For a start if you ever get it to compile (after spending a year fiddling with conversion issues) management will then shelve the "improve the code" effort (a never ending proposition if there ever was one) because if it works don't f*** with it!
Spend the time and redesign the application to meet current requirements and code from the start. If you have 4000+ forms I will guarantee there are improvements your user base would like to be made.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone seems to assume that "legacy code" was always designed badly from the start. A good pattern is a good pattern (design). Only the tools change. I prefer a Dremel over a chisel; most of the time. Fewer rough edges in the final product.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Reread the first paragraph of the post, the OP states there are issues with the existing system.
It curls my toes thinking about trying to convert such a large codebase and betting it will work.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
It was more a rhetorical response to your generalization.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
