|
Thread Rules 1. This is not a "do my homework for me" thread. If you have specific questions, ask, but don't post an assignment or homework problem and expect an exact solution. 2. No recruiting for your cockamamie projects (you won't replace facebook with 3 dudes you found on the internet and $20) 3. If you can't articulate why a language is bad, don't start slinging shit about it. Just remember that nothing is worse than making CSS IE6 compatible. 4. Use [code] tags to format code blocks. |
On January 14 2014 10:09 WarSame wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 07:52 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 13 2014 11:04 WarSame wrote:Hey everyone, I finished my Pong game now! This time around I tried to obey Sluggaslamoo and Darkness and make it into a MVC project with clear and small methods. In general, I think I've done so correctly. The only thing that really stands out to me as a potential non-error downside is that when you press Space and are trying to move your paddle at the same time it sometimes stops your paddle. Also, I did a non-decorated Window because the borders were messing up the display. Paddles and the ball would go through the bottom border where they weren't visible, which caused problems. The link is: https://github.com/WarSame/PongGraemeEDIT: It contains an executable JAR if you feel like checking it out. Runs right out of the box. Don't need to download anything other than the JAR. Its much better than your first so well done. However its not really MVC as there are no models. Make sure to create a class for each component in your project. Not because its MVC but because of OOP, object decomposition is fundamental to OOP. If you aren't decomposing your project into separate objects, then you may as well not be using Java  . You don't really need to think too hard about it either. What does a Ping Pong game consist of? Think about that, then make the appropriate classes and place the logic there. Your code would be ok if it was written in a non-OO language though. Thanks for the feedback.  For MVC I thought that View = user display, Model = data, Control = controlling logic. As I saw it the Model was PongData, the View was PongPanel and the Control was PongFrame. I guess I really misunderstood what MVC is. Looking at Wikipedia this seems like it might be an example of a passive model, though, where the view is updated from the model by polling(by running the heartbeat cycle with sleep lengths). Maybe not, and honestly this is confusing me quite a bit by this point. Could you point out what you believe would make this into an MVC project? As for making a class for each component of the project, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean I should make one for Ball(with an X and Y value/speed), one for Paddle, and so on like that? If so, you are definitely right and I regret not doing that. If not could you please clarify it? And thanks for the feedback throughout, I definitely appreciate it. This project was a lot easier to handle organization-wise than the last one for Tic Tac Toe.
Yep basically what you said and not much more than that if at all. Those classes will basically serve as "models".
Controllers handle inputs. For example in a website it will handle the URL's, in your case its the game controller inputs. There should be minimal logic in the controller. Think about how much logic is in an actual game controller, it takes a signal, and converts it into an instruction to the game, that's all your controller should do as well. As a rule of thumb, light controllers, fat models.
Pretty much all the logic should be in your models. Anything code that has anything to do with a model, should be in the model itself. For example, "moving a Paddle", there should be a move method on the Paddle itself, don't write the logic in the controller or anywhere else. In the controller you would handle the mouse movement, and delegate all logic to the Paddle by passing in the mouse event or minimal information necessary.
You could also do it declaratively, by adding in a listener to the paddle in the beginning and firing it off with the controller.
When I was saying that your last example was MVC, I was more or less being tongue in cheek about MVC not being the issue there. When you do things properly your program will naturally become MVC of sorts. Even when you do implement what I said, it won't be MVC really.
MVC normally has an ORM associated with it, and you declare Models as an abstraction for saveable/stateful components in your application.
I only pointed it out because you specifically wanted your app to be MVC. I don't think its necessary to think of it like that though. MVC is much more useful for applications where you need to save state. This is more or less focused on doing Responsibility Driven Design.
|
On January 14 2014 10:30 sob3k wrote: If I want to add H1-H6 headers to a previously made page for SEO purposes, if there any way for me to remove all formatting from them? I just want to stick them on as SEO markers and not have them effect the site visibly at all. Right now they break all kinds of stuff. I tried some resets but none of them reduce the headings to just tags. I'm gonna avoid commenting on whether or not you should be doing that for SEO purposes, but have you looked at the page's css at all? That should be controlling the way stuff looks, not so much your html.
|
MVC isn't about the existence of classes and pinging the models, it's about how the classes are bound together, and how classes access and receive updates from each other. If you have to keep a reference to the model in your view, you have broken MVC. Throughout both your Frame and DisplayPanel classes, you keep a local private copy of variables from your Data, and things like having your initializeData method inside your Frame class. You haven't separated how the Model, View and Controller interact with each other. You still modify data values outside of the data class.
|
On January 14 2014 11:39 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:09 WarSame wrote:On January 14 2014 07:52 sluggaslamoo wrote:On January 13 2014 11:04 WarSame wrote:Hey everyone, I finished my Pong game now! This time around I tried to obey Sluggaslamoo and Darkness and make it into a MVC project with clear and small methods. In general, I think I've done so correctly. The only thing that really stands out to me as a potential non-error downside is that when you press Space and are trying to move your paddle at the same time it sometimes stops your paddle. Also, I did a non-decorated Window because the borders were messing up the display. Paddles and the ball would go through the bottom border where they weren't visible, which caused problems. The link is: https://github.com/WarSame/PongGraemeEDIT: It contains an executable JAR if you feel like checking it out. Runs right out of the box. Don't need to download anything other than the JAR. Its much better than your first so well done. However its not really MVC as there are no models. Make sure to create a class for each component in your project. Not because its MVC but because of OOP, object decomposition is fundamental to OOP. If you aren't decomposing your project into separate objects, then you may as well not be using Java  . You don't really need to think too hard about it either. What does a Ping Pong game consist of? Think about that, then make the appropriate classes and place the logic there. Your code would be ok if it was written in a non-OO language though. Thanks for the feedback.  For MVC I thought that View = user display, Model = data, Control = controlling logic. As I saw it the Model was PongData, the View was PongPanel and the Control was PongFrame. I guess I really misunderstood what MVC is. Looking at Wikipedia this seems like it might be an example of a passive model, though, where the view is updated from the model by polling(by running the heartbeat cycle with sleep lengths). Maybe not, and honestly this is confusing me quite a bit by this point. Could you point out what you believe would make this into an MVC project? As for making a class for each component of the project, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean I should make one for Ball(with an X and Y value/speed), one for Paddle, and so on like that? If so, you are definitely right and I regret not doing that. If not could you please clarify it? And thanks for the feedback throughout, I definitely appreciate it. This project was a lot easier to handle organization-wise than the last one for Tic Tac Toe. Yep basically what you said and not much more than that if at all. Those classes will basically serve as "models". Controllers handle inputs. For example in a website it will handle the URL's, in your case its the game controller inputs. There should be minimal logic in the controller. Think about how much logic is in an actual game controller, it takes a signal, and converts it into an instruction to the game, that's all your controller should do as well. As a rule of thumb, light controllers, fat models. Pretty much all the logic should be in your models. Anything code that has anything to do with a model, should be in the model itself. For example, "moving a Paddle", there should be a move method on the Paddle itself, don't write the logic in the controller or anywhere else. In the controller you would handle the mouse movement, and delegate all logic to the Paddle by passing in the mouse event or minimal information necessary. You could also do it declaratively, by adding in a listener to the paddle in the beginning and firing it off with the controller. When I was saying that your last example was MVC, I was more or less being tongue in cheek about MVC not being the issue there. When you do things properly your program will naturally become MVC of sorts. Even when you do implement what I said, it won't be MVC really. MVC normally has an ORM associated with it, and you declare Models as an abstraction for saveable/stateful components in your application. I only pointed it out because you specifically wanted your app to be MVC. I don't think its necessary to think of it like that though. MVC is much more useful for applications where you need to save state. This is more or less focused on doing Responsibility Driven Design. Awesome, thanks!
EDIT: Blisse, my view doesn't contain a model. It only gets the values of the objects and then displays those. Maybe that's what you meant.
|
You have multiple sections in your View and Controller where you have things like
+ Show Spoiler +
//Frame/game data private static boolean gameWon; private static boolean pointScored; private static final int maxPoints = PongData.getMaxPoints(); private static final int paddleChange = PongData.getPaddleChange(); private static int frameHeight; private static int frameWidth; private static final int paddleHeight = PongData.getPaddleHeight(); private static final int paddleWidth = PongData.getPaddleWidth(); private static KeyEvent e; //Ball data private static final int updateTime = 16;//Use this to lower/raise the rate of refresh on the ball and AI. ms. Currently at 60fps private static int ballXLocation; private static int ballYLocation; private static int ballXSpeed; private static int ballYSpeed; private static int ballXInitialSpeed; private static int ballYInitialSpeed; private static final double ballSpeedIncrease = 1.1;//Ratio of how fast the ball speeds up on collisions. //Player data private static final int playerPaddleXLocation = PongData.getPlayerPaddleXLocation(); private static int playerPaddleYLocation; private static int playerScore; private static boolean keyDown; private static boolean keyUp; //Ai data private static final int aiPaddleXLocation = PongData.getAiPaddleXLocation(); private static int aiPaddleYLocation; private static int aiScore;
Why do you have static private references to properties of your model inside your views and controllers?
You even label these properties as "data".
If you need to keep references like so, you are breaking how MVC works. MVC is supposed to simplify how your View interacts with your Models. Each View should simply get the required properties from the Model, then transform it a bit before displaying to the user. Not keep its value as a class property. Re-writing those properties inside each outer class defeats the entire point of MVC!
Similarly, your Model shouldn't care about the Window size of the application, that's the job of the View.
|
Ah, I see what you're saying! Thanks for pointing that out, I'll definitely try to fix that. Throughout working on the project that was one thing that kept bugging me and now I see why.
|
On January 14 2014 11:41 phar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 10:30 sob3k wrote: If I want to add H1-H6 headers to a previously made page for SEO purposes, if there any way for me to remove all formatting from them? I just want to stick them on as SEO markers and not have them effect the site visibly at all. Right now they break all kinds of stuff. I tried some resets but none of them reduce the headings to just tags. I'm gonna avoid commenting on whether or not you should be doing that for SEO purposes, but have you looked at the page's css at all? That should be controlling the way stuff looks, not so much your html.
yes, the issue is that H tags come with some sort of (hidden) default styling
|
On January 14 2014 12:39 sob3k wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2014 11:41 phar wrote:On January 14 2014 10:30 sob3k wrote: If I want to add H1-H6 headers to a previously made page for SEO purposes, if there any way for me to remove all formatting from them? I just want to stick them on as SEO markers and not have them effect the site visibly at all. Right now they break all kinds of stuff. I tried some resets but none of them reduce the headings to just tags. I'm gonna avoid commenting on whether or not you should be doing that for SEO purposes, but have you looked at the page's css at all? That should be controlling the way stuff looks, not so much your html. yes, the issue is that H tags come with some sort of (hidden) default styling Which is why you always use reset css nowadays, either writing your own, or getting a premade one, such as this: http://www.cssreset.com/
|
Hey guys. Long time since I've posted here I think.
I'm having trouble connecting the front end to the back end of a .net website. I'm not sure how you do it. I guess if I were doing PHP I would first connect to the db then have some in line <?php tags to get the data from the db and echo out what I need from the db.
How does .net handle this? What if I wanted a table of data?
c# code:
public JsonResult GetUserNameAsJson() { var userContext = new UsersContext(); User user = userContext.GetUser(User.Identity.Name);
return Json(user, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); }
This might be what the function above spits out if I call it directly. {"UserID":1,"UserName":"booger","Password":"5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99","Email":"booger@gmail.com"}
Now what if I wanted the html file to call the function?
|
On January 14 2014 18:59 obesechicken13 wrote:Hey guys. Long time since I've posted here I think. I'm having trouble connecting the front end to the back end of a .net website. I'm not sure how you do it. I guess if I were doing PHP I would first connect to the db then have some in line <?php tags to get the data from the db and echo out what I need from the db. How does .net handle this? What if I wanted a table of data? c# code: public JsonResult GetUserNameAsJson() { var userContext = new UsersContext(); User user = userContext.GetUser(User.Identity.Name);
return Json(user, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); }
This might be what the function above spits out if I call it directly. {"UserID":1,"UserName":"booger","Password":"5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99","Email":"booger@gmail.com"} Now what if I wanted the html file to call the function? HTML can't call functions. What you have to use in a case like this is javascript, for example, the Jquery .ajax() call.
You can write inline code in asp.net using <% %> syntax, but you're really not supposed to, it makes for hard to maintain code. It also depends on whether or not you're using webforms or MVC, if you want to go this route.
|
|
|
I'm using MVC and I've tried lots of javascript and in particular ajax calls. But I'm not sure what to do after I have the javascript to test if its actually working.
For instance I might have this code:
$(function () { $.ajax({ type: 'POST', contentType: 'application/json', dataType: 'json', url: 'UserController.cs/GetUserNameAsJson', data: '{ FirstName: "Dave", LastName: "Ward" }' }); }); Great. Now what does it do?
By itself this returns nothing visible on the client side.
|
On January 14 2014 19:17 obesechicken13 wrote:I'm using MVC and I've tried lots of javascript and in particular ajax calls. But I'm not sure what to do after I have the javascript to test if its actually working. For instance I might have this code: $(function () { $.ajax({ type: 'POST', contentType: 'application/json', dataType: 'json', url: 'UserController.cs/GetUserNameAsJson', data: '{ FirstName: "Dave", LastName: "Ward" }' }); });Great. Now what does it do? By itself this returns nothing visible on the client side. Well, you need to output it somewhere, this is covered in many tutorials, the most common way to test it is to output the result in an alert() or console.log() call. Add ".done(function(data) {alert(data); })" to the .ajax() call.
One thing of note, your url is probably incorrect. UserController.cs makes no sense to your server, it should probably be /User/GetUserNameAsJson.
|
Hyrule19167 Posts
little note: .done() is deprecated in 1.8+, use .success() instead
|
I went to bed. Changed code to
$(function () { $.ajax({ type: 'POST', contentType: 'application/json', dataType: 'json', url: '/User/GetUserNameAsJson', data: '{ FirstName: "Dave", LastName: "Ward" }' }).success(function (data) { alert(data); }); });
I'm getting an error now. Ok I'll just ask one of my friends and copy him.
|
I've never used a .NET stack, but in this code:
public JsonResult GetUserNameAsJson() { var userContext = new UsersContext(); User user = userContext.GetUser(User.Identity.Name);
return Json(user, JsonRequestBehavior.AllowGet); }
AllowGet...does that deny POST? Because you're doing a POST. Try changing it to a GET would be my guess.
Edit: nvm, googled it and it doesn't deny other types. sorry.
|
I remember having studied some term that represents an empty while loop but I can't remember how it was used exactly and why. I suppose it was like this:
while (mailbox.isEmpty()) {} // <--- I am talking about such loop
// now the mailbox isn't empty, so execute something? mailbox.processLetters();
Does anyone remember something like this? If yes, what is a possible application? Threading?
|
On January 15 2014 07:34 darkness wrote:I remember having studied some term that represents an empty while loop but I can't remember how it was used exactly and why. I suppose it was like this: while (mailbox.isEmpty()) {} // <--- I am talking about such loop
// now the mailbox isn't empty, so execute something? mailbox.processLetters();
Does anyone remember something like this? If yes, what is a possible application? Threading?
Like this it only serves to waste computer resources. You drive a thread to 100% use for no reason.
If it was:
while(DoSomething) {}
It would do something in that method, and the method would return false to indicate that the work is complete and the loop should stop. That at least make sense, but it's still bad programming (maybe for something really low level). What you would do instead is some well established pattern of asynchronous concurrency, like event driven programming.
|
On January 15 2014 07:49 Shikada wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2014 07:34 darkness wrote:I remember having studied some term that represents an empty while loop but I can't remember how it was used exactly and why. I suppose it was like this: while (mailbox.isEmpty()) {} // <--- I am talking about such loop
// now the mailbox isn't empty, so execute something? mailbox.processLetters();
Does anyone remember something like this? If yes, what is a possible application? Threading? Like this it only serves to waste computer resources. You drive a thread to 100% use for no reason. If it was: while(DoSomething) {}
It would do something in that method, and the method would return false to indicate that the work is complete and the loop should stop. That at least make sense, but it's still bad programming (maybe for something really low level). What you would do instead is some well established pattern of asynchronous concurrency, like event driven programming.
This is is actually kind of how asynchronous/event programming works.
So for the example darkness gave.
while (mailbox.isEmpty()) {} // <--- I am talking about such loop
// now the mailbox isn't empty, so execute something? mailbox.processLetters();
The while loop would be running on another thread, also you would add a sleep to it because latency doesn't matter in this case and no need to burn the cpu. Once the while loop breaks, it would call processLetters and then restart the loop again.
Even though its hidden in some frameworks, most basic asynchronous programming has polling that's exactly like this.
The example you gave though wouldn't use a while loop. Instead you would return a "promise" to indicate that the asynchronous process has finished.
|
It's called busy spin / spin lock afaik. Overall you should avoid using it, since it just burns the CPU.
I think one thing were you can use it was when you only have to wait for very very short amount of times where implementing events would introduce a larger overhead. (No idea if that's true though, never used it)
|
|
|
|
|
|