Inventory Control App. - Looking For Suggestions - Design and Architecture Discussion Boards

Hello,
sory no idea about this.

[url=http://www.egomedia.ca/index-fr.html]IT SERVICES SOLUTION[/url]

Hello,
sorry no idea about this.

[url=http://www.egomedia.ca/index-fr.html]IT SERVICES SOLUTION[/url]

You have to sign up as a company account to do this. The cost is $99 + applicable taxes.

*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

Thank you both for the information. $99 is not such a problem since the it will reach thousand of users and it will repay the investment for good, the problem is that I don't own a company and I cannot create a company account.

If you are expecting to make a decent amount of money out of this, then creating a company is probably a good idea. If you can't, have you considered selling your app through the Intel AppUp Store[^]? That allows you to sell as an individual.

*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

Living in Greece it is a drawn back for creating a company Frown | :(

Do you think that intel AppUp will accept desktop application? This is interesting, I'll check it when I get back home.

First BASIC, then q-BASIC, moved to Pascal and Delphi, studied and work on C++, moved to C# and (unfortunately VB), learned JavaScript and after all these languages learned... when I travel abroad I have to speak English.
browse-offline.com

Menelaos Vergis wrote:
Do you think that intel AppUp will accept desktop application?

They most certainly do.

*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

Hello, CP. So I am working on this application here at work and the current piece involves inventory management. First, I will list the tools I use:

Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate
C#, .NET 4.0
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Enterprise
LINQ To SQL

Now, what I have are various types of items which need to be tracked. They are referred to as "RPCs" (and they are all computer parts). I have been thinking on this for a while but I need to figure out the most efficient way (both from a development standpoint as well as from an end-user standpoint) to input data and store these items in the database.

What I have done so far, for the first three types of RPCs, is I have created a UserControl. On that control are the fields necessary for that particular RPC type. Each RPC has various attributes which are not shared among other types. For example, a Hard Drive has Marketed Size, Physical Size (2.5" or 3.5"), RPM while a CPU has Clock Speed, Cache Size, # of Cores. I think you get the idea.

Well, I started out with these three UserControls as well as three tables in the database, one for each type. However, the issue really becomes known when I say this: to start with, I have roughly 25 diferent RPC types.

So is there a way I can keep from creating 25 UserControls, one for each type? Or 25 tables in the database just for RPCs? I thought about creating a single table with the specs that each type does have in common (e.g. Manufacturer, Model) an storing the specs in a specific format (e.g. XML) in a column and having the application manipulate the specs data as necessary. However, the performance issue arises when I think about the fact that I must be able to search various RPC types by one or more specs. For example, the application needs to be capable of finding all 500GB/7200RPM hard drives. That wouldn't work so well when using XML for all of the specs would it?

Maybe I am going about this whole thing all wrong. But then again, maybe I am better off going with the numerous tables and user controls. If that's what it takes, I'll do it. I just started thinking about it early on and realized that maybe I am not being entirely efficient with it.

Any suggestions? Big Grin | :-D

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

Matt U. wrote:
but I need to figure out the most efficient way (both from a development
standpoint as well as from an end-user standpoint)

Then you really need to have some more requirements.

For example will 100,000 users access this?
Will there be 100 billion of these?
Will there be 1000 retail locations attempting to access it?

Questions like that impact the design.

Matt U. wrote:
So is there a way I can keep from creating 25 UserControls, one for each type?

Yes.

Is it ideal in terms of your actual business requirments? I have no idea.

But the idea is simple you have a inventory item with "properties". In the simplist scenarios there business needs for the properties are very simple so consequently one can store them in a property table.

That table would look like this

Property (primary key id is assumed)
- inventory_id
- name
- type
- value

That table would have a row like the following
<some inventory="" id="">, "Clock Speed", "Decimal", "2.66"

There are many variations on the above. For example instead of "Clock Speed/"Decimal" you could have an enumeration table that define a 'type' and then the property id would tie to that type via the type id.

First of all, thank you for the response.

jschell wrote:
For example will 100,000 users access this?

Will there be 100 billion of these?

Will there be 1000 retail locations attempting to access it?

There will only be a handful of people who access this portion of the system.

There will only be roughly 25 item types. However, there may be several variations of each item type. (500GB 5400RPM, 500GB 7200RPM, 750GB 5400RPM, etc.)

There is only one facility which will access this application. It's all in-house/local.

jschell wrote:
But the idea is simple you have a inventory item with "properties". In the simplist scenarios there business needs for the properties are very simple so consequently one can store them in a property table.

So if I were to implement this idea would I have the following?

Inventory Table
------------------------
- InventoryId
- Manufacturer
- PartNumber
- ItemType
- TotalQty (this is the total qty. of this item in inventory)
- AvailableQty (this is the qty. (must be <= TotalQty) of this item which are available for picking)

Properties Table
------------------------
- InventoryId (linked to Inventory Table)
- Name
- Type
- Value

Am I understanding it correctly? Also, as far as not having that many UserControls, how could I reduce that number? I'm still thinking on that one and trying to figure it out. Smile | :)

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

Matt U. wrote:
Am I understanding it correctly?

Yes.

However why are the other fields not properties as well - like 'part number'?

Quantities are probably functional so those wouldn't be properties.

Well, I figured since the 'Manufacturer' and 'Part Number' fields were common among all items, why not have those fields in the base table. Would there be any real advantages of placing them in the Properties table? Or is it more for separation of purpose?

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

Purpose not commonality is what drives the design.

Part number might be broken out because you need to drive functionality from it - like queries and/or B2B work. I doubt Manufacturer woujld have that same need.

However it is still somewhate subjective especially since your volume is low. You might just keep them there to make it easier for the DBA to investigate stuff.

I understand, that makes sense. Oh, it will make it easier for me to investigate stuff? LoL. I run the entire show when it comes to designing and developing software here. I design the databases, maintain the servers, write the software, etc. Haha. But I understand your point. Thanks a lot for all of your input.

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

In one company I worked at, we coded these characteristics into the .part number itself.

For instancr, a 4000 series graphics chip could have a speed rating of 24, 32 or 40 MHz.

It would be numbered as 4000-24, 4000-32 and 4000-40.

In the case of your CPU, the part number could be i3-1.4-c2-v2 for Intel i3, 1-4 GHz, 2-core, version 2 model.

In this case, one needs to only have the part number entered correctly into the system and not have to worry about some Tom, Dick or Harry entering all the characteristics in a separate property sheet.

Your disk drive could be numbered DISK-2.5-500-7200 for a 2.5", 500GB, 7200 RPM drive. You can even add SATA, PATA by using an S or a P at the end.

Don't know if this would meet your needs or not.

I had already taken that into consideration. However, the part numbers come from corporate. We have no control of them whatsoever so we're a bit limited in that aspect. :-/ I figured it out though, using the separate table as mentioned.

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

We used to supply parts to the Itty Bitty Mitty Computer Corporation who wanted to see only their part number on the chips as well as on the shipping documents.

Our Inventory Control system allowed for alternate part numbers so the user could put in their part numbers and the system would still point to the one that we used inside our company.

Oh, interesting. Well, our current implementation seems to fit our needs. But I'll keep this idea in mind. Thank you, Vivic.

djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.

Is it recommended to use microsoft enterprise library for heavy traffic sites ?

If not please suggest some architecture.

Sandeep Bhatti wrote:
Is it recommended to use microsoft enterprise library for heavy traffic sites ?

It is efficient code, and unless one would like to implement their own logging-mechanism, test it, and maintain it, entlib is the recommended way. Same goes for caching, data access and exception-handling.

Sandeep Bhatti wrote:
If not please suggest some architecture.

EntLib is not an architecture. What you'd probably be looking for is the MVC-pattern, which is also not an architecture.

Bastard Programmer from Hell Suspicious | :suss:

if you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]

Deleted

Nothing is true and everything is permitted!

modified 24-Oct-12 8:07am.

1. It is considered bad form to ask for reviews of your article. Articles will get reviewed by CodeProject members in their own time.
2. If your application is going to win a prize in the contest then it needs to be all your own work.

One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.

Saif Al Falah wrote:
P.S. You could also rate and comment on my article. That would really help a lot.

That looks to me like asking for a review.

If other people suggest extra features for your app then it is not all your own work. The competition is about innovation, so it is not just coding a solution but coming up with the ideas and design in the first place.

One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.

I was afraid to post this under a general discussion forum, and it looks like this might be the closest fit ... so here goes.

For a couple of years now, I have received unwanted calls from Online Pharmacies to Debt Reduction Services, and I am so tired of telling them I am not interested and/or to remove my name from their list. Cell phone service carriers are useless, for the most part, and usually one has to resort to just blocking the offending call. But, needless to say, the offending callers will just change their number to another one, and the cycle starts over again.

Researching these numbers on the internet usually turns up a list of others complaining about the exact same phone numbers. So, it is not just me. The latest number, (617) 371-4000, appears to be someone spoofing a legitimate investment company, which is sad for the company that actually does own that phone number. There has to be something better I can do to resolve this ... I am a programmer, I am a technician, and I am (reasonably) smart!

I am not a mobile device programmer, though I feel certain that I might be able to bulldoze my way through building an app - though it wouldn't look pretty, and there would be some serious doubt about the functionality of it. So, I am looking to you (the development community) to help create a solution. I am ok with someone else profiting from the ideas I am about to propose, my reward will be in having these calls stopped, and that IS priceless.

I believe that a simple app (Android, iOS, and/or even Windows) which maintains a list of offending phone numbers and when a phone number is matched to an inbound caller, instead of alerting the user that a phone call is coming in ... answer the call ... but act like a fax machine. The app should act completely like a fax machine, even to the point of accepting a fax transmission if it provided ... just don't do anything with the incoming data. It might even be possible to give the user an extra button for incoming calls ... The normal choices for incoming calls are Answer and Decline, maybe the application can add a third option ... "FAX Spoof"

The people responsible for these spoofing efforts (and I do understand that it might be multiple groups of multiple individuals, and might not even be connected or aware of each other), do not care what you do or say ... They just move on to other numbers, and if necessary move their numbers as well. Cursing at them doesn't work. Phone carriers are useless. I truly believe that the only way to stop it is to eventually have MY number show up in their list as a useless fax number, and I believe a tool like this would work wonders at bring that situation about.

Unwanted calls fall into one of the following
1. Outright fraudulent.
2. Unintentionally fraudulent.
3. Legitimate but abusive.
4. Legitimate but useful.

The first will change telephone numbers often.
2/3 will seldom change numbers but there is a lot of them.
4 you want to get them.

Black listed numbers won't help for 1.
Black listing for 2/3 won't help unless one number repeatedly calls.
Obviously you wouldn't want to black list 4.

White listing won't help if you want 4.

pdelayCA wrote:
Cursing at them doesn't work. Phone carriers are useless.

In the US there are various ways to deal with this. You put your number on do not call lists. You can file written complaints. You can sue at least in some jurisdictions. A least in some cases it is small claims court which telemarketers would be loath to fight since it is local to the consumer not the telemarketer.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7532224[^]

pdelayCA wrote:
<layer>I am not a mobile device programmer, though I feel certain that I might be able to bulldoze my way through building an app - though it wouldn't look pretty, and there would be some serious doubt about the functionality of it. So, I am looking to you (the development community) to help create a solution.

They already exist.