Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 111/348 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

  • MVC: Model View Controller -- does the View call the Model?

    - by Gary Green
    I've been reading about MVC design for a while now and it seems officially the View calls objects and methods in the Model, builds and outputs a view. I think this is mainly wrong. The Controller should act and retrieve/update objects inside the Model, select an appropriate View and pass the information to it so it may display. Only crude and rudiementary PHP variables/simple if statements should appear inside the View. If the View gets the information it needs to display from the Model, surely there will be a lot of PHP inside the View -- completely violating the point of seperating presentation logic.

    Read the article

  • Fluent API Style Usage

    - by Chris Dwyer
    When programming against a fluent API, I've seen the style mostly like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject() .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .DoSomeTransformation(); What is the reasoning behind putting the dot at the beginning of the line instead of the end of the line like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject(). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). DoSomeTransformation(); Or, is it merely a style thing that a team makes a consensus on?

    Read the article

  • WordPress: Image In Every Post

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, If you visit this site: http://www.catswhocode.com/blog/ You would see that there is an image and summary for each post. What is the proper way to implement that? Is this done using wordpress custom fields? Or whether this is coded in image.php file present in theme folder? How do i do that? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Validation without ServiceLocator

    - by Dmitriy Nagirnyak
    Hi, I am getting back again and again to it thinking about the best way to perform validation on POCO objects that need access to some context (ISession in NH, IRepository for example). The only option I still can see is to use S*ervice Locator*, so my validation would look like: public User : ICanValidate { public User() {} // We need this constructor (so no context known) public virtual string Username { get; set; } public IEnumerable<ValidationError> Validate() { if (ServiceLocator.GetService<IUserRepository>().FindUserByUsername(Username) != null) yield return new ValidationError("Username", "User already exists.") } } I already use Inversion Of control and Dependency Injection and really don't like the ServiceLocator due to number of facts: Harder to maintain implicit dependencies. Harder to test the code. Potential threading issues. Explicit dependency only on the ServiceLocator. The code becomes harder to understand. Need to register the ServiceLocator interfaces during the testing. But on the other side, with plain POCO objects, I do not see any other way of performing the validation like above without ServiceLocator and only using IoC/DI. So the question would be: is there any way to use DI/IoC for the situation described above? Thanks, Dmitriy.

    Read the article

  • How can I write classes that don't rely on "global" variables?

    - by Joel
    When I took my first programming course in university, we were taught that global variables were evil & should be avoided at all cost (since you can quickly develop confusing and unmaintainable code). The following year, we were taught object oriented programming, and how to create modular code using classes. I find that whenever I work with OOP, I use my classes' private variables as global variables, i.e., they can be (and are) read and modified by any function within the class. This isn't really sitting right with me, as it seems to introduce the same problems global variables had in languages like C. So I guess my question is, how do I stop writing classes with "global" variables? Would it make more sense to pretend I'm writing in a functional language? By this I mean having all functions take parameters & return values instead of directly modifying class variables. If I need to set any fields, I can just take the output of the function and assign it instead of having the function do it directly. This seems like it might make more maintainable code, at least for larger classes. What's common practice? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • automated email downloading and treading similar messages

    - by Michael
    Okay here it is : I have built an c# console app that downloads email, save attachments , and stores the subject, from, to, body to a MS SQL Database. I use aspNetPOP3 Component to do this. I have build a front end ASP.NET application to search and view the messages. Works great. Next Steps (this is where I need help ): Now I want my users (of the asp.net app) to reply to this message send the email to the originator, and tread any additional replies back and forth on from that original message(like basecamp). This would allow my end user not to have to log-in to a system, they just continue using email (our users can as well). The question is what should I use to determine if messages are related? Subject line I think is a bad approach. I believe the best method i've seen so far is way basecamp does it, but I'm not sure how that is done, here is a real example of the reply to address from a basecamp email (I've changed the host name): [email protected] Basecamp obviously are prefixing the pre-pending a tracking id to the email address, however , when I try this with my mail service, it's rejected. Is this the best approach, is there a way I can accomplish this, is there a better approach, or even a better email component tool? Thanks, Mike

    Read the article

  • GOTO still considered harmful?

    - by Kyle Cronin
    Everyone is aware of Dijkstra's Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful (also here .html transcript and here .pdf) and there has been a formidable push since that time to eschew the goto statement whenever possible. While it's possible to use goto to produce unmaintainable, sprawling code, it nevertheless remains in modern programming languages. Even the advanced continuation control structure in Scheme can be described as a sophisticated goto. What circumstances warrant the use of goto? When is it best to avoid? As a followup question: C provides a pair of functions, setjmp and longjmp, that provide the ability to goto not just within the current stack frame but within any of the calling frames. Should these be considered as dangerous as goto? More dangerous? Dijkstra himself regretted that title, of which he was not responsible for. At the end of EWD1308 (also here .pdf) he wrote: Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth. A well thought out classic paper about this topic, to be matched to that of Dijkstra, is Structured Programming with go to Statements (also here .pdf), by Donald E. Knuth. Reading both helps to reestablish context and a non-dogmatic understanding of the subject. In this paper, Dijkstra's opinion on this case is reported and is even more strong: Donald E. Knuth: I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra's ideas, since he recently wrote the following: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"

    Read the article

  • Which is the most memory leak safe approach.

    - by MattC
    I have a table of frequently updated information. This is presented using a container div with a div for each row, each row containing 10 divs. I am using setInterval to call a an asmx webservice that returns some json formatted information. On the success callback I call $("#myContainer").empty(); on the container div and recreate the rows and 10 nested divs for each row's columns. This page may be left to run for a whole day, so I am wary of updating the DOM like this as I have noticed that memory does rise for the browser over time (IE8). The other approach I am considering is to add an idea to the row div. When new results process each item of data, look for the corresponding row, if it exists overwrite the data in each div. If it doesn't exist (new data for example), append the row. What approaches have others used for this sort of long lived pseudo realtime information display. TIA

    Read the article

  • Can a script called by XHR reference $_COOKIE?

    - by Christian Mann
    Quick yes/no - I'm building an AJAX application and some scripts require authentication. Can I read $_COOKIE['username'] and $_COOKIE['password'] on the server if the PHP script was called via XHR, whether that be $.get() or $.post()? Side question: Can it also set cookies? Is that considered "good practice"?

    Read the article

  • Advantages of a build server?

    - by CraigS
    I am attempting to convince my colleagues to start using a build server and automated building for our Silverlight application. I have justified it on the grounds that we will catch integration errors more quickly, and will also always have a working dev copy of the system with the latest changes. But some still don't get it. What are the most significant advantages of using a Build Server for your project?

    Read the article

  • How to handle BL cache for multiple web applications?

    - by Eran Betzalel
    I recently received a project that contains multiple web applications with no MVC structure. For starters I've created a library (DLL) that will contain the main Business Logic. The problem is with Caching - If I use the current web context cache object than I might end up with duplicate caching (as the web context will be different for every application). I'm currently thinking about implementing a simple caching mechanism with a singleton pattern that will allow the different web sites (aka different application domains) to share their "caching wisdom". I'd like to know what is the best way to solve this problem.

    Read the article

  • Whats the point of STL?

    - by Jonathan D
    I've been programming c++ for about a year now and when i'm looking about i see lots of references to STL. Can some one please tell me what it does? and the advantages and disadvantageous of it? thanks

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a contructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • Business Layer Pattern on Rails? MVCL

    - by Fabiano PS
    That is a broad question, and I appreciate no short/dumb asnwers like: "Oh that is the model job, this quest is retarded (period)" PROBLEM Where I work at people created a system over 2 years for managing the manufacture process over demand in the most simplified still broad as possible, involving selling, buying, assemble, The system is coded over Ruby On Rails. The result has been changed lots of times and the result is a mess on callbacks (some are called several times), 200+ models, and fat controllers: Total bad. The QUESTION is, if there is a gem, or pattern designed to handle Rails large app logic? The logic whould be able to fully talk to models (whose only concern would be data format handling and validation) What I EXPECT is to reduce complexity from various controllers, and hard to track callbacks into files with the responsibility to handle a business operation logic. In some cases there is the need to wait for a response, in others, only validation of the input is enough and a bg process would take place. ie: -- Sell some products (need to wait the operation to finish) 1. Set a View able to get the products input 2. Controller gets the product list inputed by employee and call the logic Logic::ExecuteWithResponse('sell', 'products', :prods => @product_list_with_qtt, :when => @date, :employee => current_user() ) This Logic would handle buying order, assemble order, machine schedule, warehouse reservation, and others

    Read the article

  • ORM market analysis

    - by bonefisher
    I would like to see your experience with popular ORM tools outhere, like NHibernate, LLBLGen, EF, S2Q, Genom-e, LightSpeed, DataObjects.NET, OpenAccess, ... From my exp: - Genom-e is quiet capable of Linq & performance, dev support - EF lacks on some key features like lazy loading, Poco support, pers.ignorance... but in 4.o it may have overcome .. - DataObjects.Net so far good, althrough I found some bugs - NHibernate steep learning curve, no 100% Linq support (like in Genom-e and DataObjects.Net), but very supportive, extensible and mature

    Read the article

  • Centering a percent-based div

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, Recently, a client asked that his site be percent-based rather than pixel-based. The percent was to be set to 80%. As you guys know, it is very easy to center the container if it is pixel-based but how do you center a percent-based main container? #container { width:80%; margin:0px auto; } That does not center the container :(

    Read the article

  • Correctly use dependency injection

    - by Rune
    Me and two other colleagues are trying to understand how to best design a program. For example, I have an interface ISoda and multiple classes that implement that interface like Coke, Pepsi, DrPepper, etc.... My colleague is saying that it's best to put these items into a database like a key/value pair. For example: Key | Name -------------------------------------- Coke | my.namespace.Coke, MyAssembly Pepsi | my.namespace.Pepsi, MyAssembly DrPepper | my.namespace.DrPepper, MyAssembly ... then have XML configuration files that map the input to the correct key, query the database for the key, then create the object. I don't have any specific reasons, but I just feel that this is a bad design, but I don't know what to say or how to correctly argue against it. My second colleague is suggesting that we micro-manage each of these classes. So basically the input would go through a switch statement, something similiar to this: ISoda soda; switch (input) { case "Coke": soda = new Coke(); break; case "Pepsi": soda = new Pepsi(); break; case "DrPepper": soda = new DrPepper(); break; } This seems a little better to me, but I still think there is a better way to do it. I've been reading up on IoC containers the last few days and it seems like a good solution. However, I'm still very new to dependency injection and IoC containers, so I don't know how to correctly argue for it. Or maybe I'm the wrong one and there's a better way to do it? If so, can someone suggest a better method? What kind of arguments can I bring to the table to convince my colleagues to try another method? What are the pros/cons? Why should we do it one way? Unfortunately, my colleagues are very resistant to change so I'm trying to figure out how I can convince them.

    Read the article

  • hover effect jQuery

    - by Ori Cohen
    I have a bunch of li elements that I want to alternate in color using odds and evens, and then highlight based on mouse hover. In order to un-highlight I need to keep track of what the color used to be, odd or even. To do this when I apply the highlight color, I first set an arbitrary attribute to it. Are there any downsides to doing it this way? Is there a better way? Here's the code: <script type="text/javascript"> var init = function(event){ $("li:odd").css({'background-color' : '#eeeeee', 'font-weight' : 'bold'}); $("li:even").css('background-color', '#cccccc'); //initial colors setup $("li").hover( function () //hover over { var current = $(this); current.attr('old-background', current.css('background-color')); current.css('background-color', '#ffee99'); } , function() //hover out { var current = $(this); current.css('background-color', current.attr('old-background')); }) } $(document).ready(init); </script> So is there a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Prefer extension methods for encapsulation and reusability?

    - by tzaman
    edit4: wikified, since this seems to have morphed more into a discussion than a specific question. In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. (edit: Even in the current .NET library, I can see places where it would've been useful to have extensions instead of instance methods - for example, all of the utility functions of List<T> (Sort, BinarySearch, FindIndex, etc.) would be incredibly useful if they were lifted up to IList<T> - getting free bonus functionality like that adds a lot more benefit to implementing the interface.) So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself? (edit2: In response to Tomas - while C# did start out with Java's (overly, imo) OO mentality, it seems to be embracing more multi-paradigm programming with every new release; the main thrust of this question is whether using extension methods to drive a style change (towards more generic / functional C#) is useful or worthwhile..) edit3: overridable extension methods The only real problem identified so far with this approach, is that you can't specialize extension methods if you need to. I've been thinking about the issue, and I think I've come up with a solution. Suppose I have an interface MyInterface, which I want to extend - I define my extension methods in a MyExtension static class, and pair it with another interface, call it MyExtensionOverrider. MyExtension methods are defined according to this pattern: public static int MyMethod(this MyInterface obj, int arg, bool attemptCast=true) { if (attemptCast && obj is MyExtensionOverrider) { return ((MyExtensionOverrider)obj).MyMethod(arg); } // regular implementation here } The override interface mirrors all of the methods defined in MyExtension, except without the this or attemptCast parameters: public interface MyExtensionOverrider { int MyMethod(int arg); string MyOtherMethod(); } Now, any class can implement the interface and get the default extension functionality: public class MyClass : MyInterface { ... } Anyone that wants to override it with specific implementations can additionally implement the override interface: public class MySpecializedClass : MyInterface, MyExtensionOverrider { public int MyMethod(int arg) { //specialized implementation for one method } public string MyOtherMethod() { // fallback to default for others MyExtension.MyOtherMethod(this, attemptCast: false); } } And there we go: extension methods provided on an interface, with the option of complete extensibility if needed. Fully general too, the interface itself doesn't need to know about the extension / override, and multiple extension / override pairs can be implemented without interfering with each other. I can see three problems with this approach - It's a little bit fragile - the extension methods and override interface have to be kept synchronized manually. It's a little bit ugly - implementing the override interface involves boilerplate for every function you don't want to specialize. It's a little bit slow - there's an extra bool comparison and cast attempt added to the mainline of every method. Still, all those notwithstanding, I think this is the best we can get until there's language support for interface functions. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • C# integer primary key generation using Entity Framework with local database file (Sdf)

    - by Ronny
    Hello, I'm writing a standalone application and I thought using Entity Framework to store my data. At the moment the application is small so I can use a local database file to get started. The thing is that the local database file doesn't have the ability to auto generate integer primary keys as SQL Server does. Any suggestions how to manage primary keys for entities in a local database file that will be compatible with SQL Server in the future? Thanks, Ronny

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >