Every Monday I have to separate out the paper, glass, aluminum, and plastic to recycle and take them up to the curb. This last Monday while engaged in this weekly ritual, I thought that recycling a design pattern might be an interesting exercise. Additionally, it’s the kind of design pattern advantage that can be used at work to save re-inventing the wheel when you have a similar development task. You may remember the Dragon Factory where we employed a Factory Method to set up an easy-to-use drag application. In the original Dragon Factory, both the Creator and Product participants had subclasses. However, with only a slight revision, it’s possible to create a little game for making different faces subclassing only the Product interface (abstract class). Figure 1 shows the File-Class Diagram:
Figure 1: Factory Method with Single Concrete Creator
You can see the design similarities between this application (MrFace) and the Dragon application. The main difference is that this one has a single concrete factory (FaceCreator) for all of the concrete products. The factory churns out all of the Product children and puts them into an array. The Client requests the array from the Creator and pulls out the elements with a loop. As you can see, they’re all draggable elements. Try out the embedded SWF file below to see how it works:
The same Product (from the Dragon application) is re-used so it is unnecessary to revise it. However, instead of a video and a dynamically generated graphic, all of the graphics were put into the Library as Sprite classes. (To make a Sprite class just change the Base class to flash.display.Sprite.) Continue reading ‘ActionScript 3.0 Design Pattern Re-use and Modification’
You will remember the initial query that launched this two-part post started with an inquiry into the possibility of dragging a Video while it was playing. In order to make the query more relevant to design patterns, this second part looks at the process for expanding the larger issue of dragging objects inside a Sprite. Whenever undertaking such a project, begin with the Variation Table (akaMagic Table) to find the possible variations. The wrong way to start developing a design pattern for a practical problem is to look at all of the different class diagrams and pick one that looks like it will fit your problem. Instead, always start by asking, what varies?
In this case, the “hitchhiker” to be dragged is the particular type of object in question. We saw how to drag a Video object, but what about other objects that need to hitchhike on a Sprite to be dragged? So, we’re talking about different objects—or put otherwise—object variation. The closest matching variation in the Magic Table is the variation of the subclass of the object that is instantiated. That means a Factory Method design. (See how easy that was?) Continue reading ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to ActionScript 3.0: The Dragon Factory—Part 2′
Before going on, you can download all of the source code and the AIR application by clicking the Download button. Additionally, you may want to access the Catalog Online.
I changed the color combinations. I concluded that Kuler’s 1944mustang color set was the best for this project because I needed a white background and I liked the orange for highlight. I used red for labeling on the diagrams, but it was used sparsely and provided a consistency. Continue reading ‘ActionScript 3.0 Design Pattern Catalog: Creational Patterns’
In the first part of this article, Friends with Benefits: Refactoring with Multiple Design Patterns—Part I you saw how a Factory Method design pattern was used to hold and deliver data to a DataProvider object. The Factory Method design pattern allowed for easy update by simply adding items to concrete products from a Product interface (DataSupply) or new concrete Product classes. New data can be added to the Concrete Products and the Client makes requests through the Creator interface. The request is filtered through the Concrete Creator to the Product interface to the concrete Product classes. Now, all we need to do is to refactor the player with a design pattern. However, before starting download the application (With 12 classes in the design patterns, a Client class plus three folders of videos, there’s a lot!) So first off, click here to Download All Files . You can see a working version of the player and multiple data sets here. These will help pull together all of the elements used in this project.
Here Comes the Big Bad State Machine
Before we get going on refactoring the video player application, we need to see where it will go in the context of both the State and the Factory Method design patterns. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the refactored player (State) and the factory that delivers the data (Factory Method). Figure 1: Files for two design patterns in class diagram
The images are organized in an “open” folder, and the videos are placed in separate folders showing their relative position to the classes making up the two design patterns. The Client makes a request through the Factory Method to populate a List component with data from a DataProvider. Then, the request from the Client to the player can be made through the List component by clicking on the video selection. Figure 2 shows what the final product looks like so that you can more easily follow the refactoring: Continue reading ‘Friends with Benefits: State and Factory Method Together at Last—Part II’
After I made my video player that I planned to use to illustrate refactoring a non-design pattern program into a design pattern one, I noticed how crowded the Client class had become. Most of the crowding was caused by creating and populating UIs and event handling functions. One class that I use a lot to populate UI components is the DataProvider. As I went through and edited and organized my videos from a vacation to Prague, CZ, the DataProvider kept growing. Using MP4 files converted into F4V files, I used very similar formats for the data portion of all of the DataProvider instance. Why not put the DataProvider data into a separate class? Then, I could just call an instance of the class with the data and not have to clutter the Client class with messy DataProvider information.
Lazy Programming can be a Lot of Work
After moving the DataProvider data to another class, I realized that I had two other projects using the video player that accessed the same kind of data. So, while I was at it, I might as well add classes for these other projects. In fact, why not add a common interface as well? Then I could program all data requests to the interface instead of the implementation. Further, I could add some separation between the DataProvider items and the Client requests by adding a factory, and if I were going to do that, I might as well go ahead and create a Factory Method design pattern. Then, whenever I wanted to add a class with data for different projects I could do so without having to worry about messing up the rest of the program. Each project was handled using a Concrete Product class.
The Big Picture
To begin with a clear idea of what is going on in this refactoring exercise, you’ll need to get the big picture. Figure 1 provides an overview of how the video player is to be refactored using two design patterns:
Bill Sanders
Recent Comments