|
Sounds like a job for NFC. Many phones these days do NFC, and for the members that don't have one, there's a "credit card" option.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Can you elaborate on this a little more? I looked up 'NFC', but the results are a bit vauge
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
Near Field Communication - The range is only a couple of inches.
Someone's phone can be used as a "key" to unlock the door.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter_in_2780 wrote: Also it might be worth chatting to @glennPattonWork . He's known to dabble in such things.
How do I reach out to Glenn?. I click this link and it takes me to his profile, but I don't see any way to message him
In theory, theory and practice are the same. But in practice, they never are.”
If it's not broken, fix it until it is.
Everything makes sense in someone's mind.
|
|
|
|
|
If you post something in a forum here with an @username in the body of the message, they should receive a notification that they have been mentioned.
See what happens, @kevinmarois !
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Poor old username[^] - a lurking member for nearly 21 years, and they get an email every time someone wants to explain how the "mentions" system works. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Never fear, Glenn is here. ![Green Alien | [Alien]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/alien.gif) help you!
Dabble is correct, I am trying to convince people they are actually using NFC while they claim to be using RFID.
NFC as other have said is a short range protocol for reading and writing data between a tag. I think there are limits imposed on the range you can operate at. I'm fairly sure these are imposed by the power applied to the antenna. I'm more an expert on RFID though. If I can help I will...
|
|
|
|
|
I am remodeling the restrooms in a Business building that has already been built, do I need to use the most recent version of ICC A117.1 or can I use the ICC 117.1-2009 standards?
|
|
|
|
|
Don't have a clue: you found the wrong site.
"Design and Architecture" in this context relates to the the design of complex software systems, and the decisions related to overall software system structure and behavior.
It has a total of sod all to do with how high the bathroom stall doors should be or whether the hinges should be on the left, right, or top edge.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Don't bother with standards, just dig a 40 foot hole in the car park and put a canvas shelter round it.
|
|
|
|
|
🎶 Don't dig there, dig it elsewhere.
You're digging it round and it ought to be square. 🎶
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the great Bernard Cribbins. 
|
|
|
|
|
You are very much on the wrong site.
Next time you want to post on a forum you've never heard of before, take a look around at the other questions to see if the forum is what you think it is.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if they will manage to find their way back here?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 16030517 wrote: use the most recent version of ICC A117.1 or can I use the ICC 117.1-2009
You will need to use "the most recent" one which appears to be 2017.
However realistically in an existing building it depends on what you are actually doing in terms of the remodel.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone list the criteria for evaluating a website that has UX UI standards or not? I am creating my own website now, so i need some useful advices from you guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
To design a UX-UI website:
1) Recognize the problems that your users face.
2) Write user stories
3) Create a list of interfaces
4) Determine design trends
5) Establish a prototype
|
|
|
|
|
I have a class A whose instances contain a few class B's, and a few class C's. The objects are all constructed from database records, one record representing a single A, B or C. The objects are read from the database and created at application startup.
The problem is that I can't decide between different instance creation strategies.
-- Should I call a single method of class A, and have A construct all of its contained B's and C's?
-- Should I have a separate factory class construct all three classes and set which objects are contained by which other objects?
-- Or maybe a factory class that constructs A, and in turn A constructs its B's and C's?
Which pattern is most preferred? Perhaps one I haven't mentioned?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I tend towards "builder" classes: static classes with static methods that construct these "object graphs" (that reside in memory / data class / repository). And may also serialize and deserialize them. They often run async.
Sometimes I build top down; sometimes bottom up (summing). "Adapters" let me step "outside the box" instead of thinking "how can I build 'myself'".
I sort of patterned it after the .NET table adapter and the concept of the "fill" method (which in that case fills tables and data sets).
(So: "option 2")
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
modified 17-May-23 23:56pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, Gerry. What's the theory behind your preference? Is there one, or do you just like to do it that way?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the object graphs I build contain thousands of entries; and 4 levels deep.
I'm wiring up a hierarchy. There is no container; the hierarchy is an illusion; what "level" should build the tree?
An "adapter" builds the tree (a recursive structure of entities imported from a csv type text file; then serialized to binary).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I agree here; the static factory has the advantage that you can easily track and modify the way an object is created. Instead of modifying a lot of new This() and new That(A, B) statements, you have a BuildA(). And you can modify the behavior's of all BuildA's at a single point.
To make a short story longer, a practical example is adding a logger in a factory;
A short tale on two patterns that live in .NET[^] 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: few class B's, and a few class C's...Which pattern is most preferred?
Unless there is more information than what you posted then you are spending time on something that is not worth spending time on. Any way that you do it is going to be sufficient.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
