Search Results

Search found 5915 results on 237 pages for '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 114/237 | < Previous Page | 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121  | Next Page >

  • To change checkbox text or to not change?

    - by Axarydax
    Hi, I'm having an argument with a co-worker, and I'm trying to convince him that it's a bad idea to change checkbox text (label) according to the checkbox state. For example, we have a combobox that automatically picks selected value (and is disabled) when checkbox next to it is checked and is enabled when checkbox is cleared. His idea is to show Autoselect when checkbox is checked and Manual select when it's cleared. I'm sure that this will confuse the user as users tend to think that checking a checkbox next to a verb will make it true, only to find that the label has changed to something else. What is your opinion on this matter? P.S. I remember reading about changing checkbox text somewhere, in a book or blog article, but can't remember where. It would be great to have this in writing :-)

    Read the article

  • jquery: How to deal with 'this' in ajax callbacks

    - by Svish
    I currently have code similar to this for a form: $('#some-form') .submit(function() { // Make sure we are not already busy if($(this).data('busy')) return false; $(this).data('busy', true); // Do post $.post("some/url", $(this).serialize(), function(data) { if(data.success) // Success is a boolean I set in the result on the server { // Deal with data } else { // Display error } $('#some-form') .removeData('busy'); }); return false; }); My issue is that I would like to somehow remove the need for knowing the form id in the post callback. In the end where I remove the busy data from the form, I'd like to somehow not have that hard coded. Is there any way I can do this? Is there a way I can hand whatever is in this to the post callback function? Since I know the id right now, I can get around it by doing what I have done, but I'd like to know how to not be dependant on knowing the id, since often I don't have an id. (For example if I have a link in each row in a table and all the rows have the same click handler.

    Read the article

  • Patterns for avoiding jQuery silent fails

    - by Matias
    Is there any good practice to avoid your jQuery code silently fail? For example: $('.this #is:my(complexSelector)').doSomething(); I know that every time this line get executed, the selector is intended to match at least one element, or certain amount of elements. Is there any standard or good way to validate that? I thought about something like this: var $matchedElements = $('.this #is:my(complexSelector)'); if ($matchedElements.length < 0) throw 'No matched elements'; $matchedElements.doSomething(); Also I think unit testing would be a valid option instead of messing the code. My question may be silly, but I wonder whether there is a better option than the things that I'm currently doing or not. Also, maybe I'm in the wrong way checking if any element match my selector. However, as the page continues growing, the selectors could stop matching some elements and pieces of functionality could stop working inadvertently.

    Read the article

  • The Wheel Invention - Beneficial For Learning?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, Chris Coyier of css-tricks.com has written a good article titled Regarding Wheel Invention. In a paragraph he says: On the “reinventing” side, you benefit from complete control and learning from the process. And on the very next line he says: On the other side, you benefit from speed, reliability, and familiarity. Also often at odds are time spent and cost. He is right in both statements I think. I really like his first statement. I do actually sometimes re-invent the wheel to learn more and gain complete control over what I am inventing. I wonder why people are so much against that or rather biased. Isn't there the benefit of learning and getting complete control or probably some other benefits too. I would love to see what you have to say about this.

    Read the article

  • Is it better for class data to be passed internally or accessed directly?

    - by AaronSzy
    Example: // access fields directly private void doThis() { return doSomeWork(this.data); } // receive data as an argument private void doThis(data) { return doSomeWork(data); } The first option is coupled to the value in this.data while the second option avoids this coupling. I feel like the second option is always better. It promotes loose coupling WITHIN the class. Accessing global class data willy-nilly throughout just seems like a bad idea. Obviously this class data needs to be accessed directly at some point. However, if accesses, to this global class data can be eliminated by parameter passing, it seems that this is always preferable. The second example has the advantage of working with any data of the proper type, whereas the first is bound to working with the just class data. Even if you don't NEED the additional flexibility, it seems nice to leave it as an option. I just don't see any advantage in accessing member data directly from private methods as in the first example. Whats the best practice here? I've referenced code complete, but was not able to find anything on this particular issue.

    Read the article

  • 'goto' usage

    - by Landon
    I've long been under the impression that 'goto' should never be used if possible. While perusing libavcodec (which is written in C) the other day, I noticed multiple uses of it. Is it ever advantageous to use 'goto' in a language that supports loops and functions? If so, why?

    Read the article

  • how can I "force" a branch upon the trunk, in the case I can't "reintegrate"?

    - by davka
    We created a branch from the trunk on which a major refactoring was done. Meanwhile, the trunk advanced a few revisions with some fixes. We don't want these changes on the branch, so we don't want to "catch-up" merge the trunk to the branch, because we don't want to mix the old and new code. But without this I can't reintegrate the branch back to the trunk. Is there a way to impose the branch on the trunk "as-is"? (an idea I considered is to undo ("reverse-merge") the trunk back to the revision where the branch started, and then it is safe to merge it on branch - nothing should happen. Then I can reintegrate. What do you think?) thanks!

    Read the article

  • Python: Calling method A from class A within class B?

    - by Tommo
    There are a number of questions that are similar to this, but none of the answers hits the spot - so please bear with me. I am trying my hardest to learn OOP using Python, but i keep running into errors (like this one) which just make me think this is all pointless and it would be easier to just use methods. Here is my code: class TheGUI(wx.Frame): def __init__(self, title, size): wx.Frame.__init__(self, None, 1, title, size=size) # The GUI is made ... textbox.TextCtrl(panel1, 1, pos=(67,7), size=(150, 20)) button1.Bind(wx.EVT_BUTTON, self.button1Click) self.Show(True) def button1Click(self, event): #It needs to do the LoadThread function! class WebParser: def LoadThread(self, thread_id): #It needs to get the contents of textbox! TheGUI = TheGUI("Text RPG", (500,500)) TheParser = WebParser TheApp.MainLoop() So the problem i am having is that the GUI class needs to use a function that is in the WebParser class, and the WebParser class needs to get text from a textbox that exists in the GUI class. I know i could do this by passing the objects around as parameters, but that seems utterly pointless, there must be a more logical way to do this that doesn't using classes seem so pointless? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • The standard map/associative-array structure to use in flash actionscript 3?

    - by tstyle
    I'm relatively new to flash, and is confused about what I should use to store and retrieve key value pairs. After some googling I've found various map-like things to choose from: 1) Use a Object: var map:Object = new Object(); map["key"] = "value"; The problem is that it seems to lack some very basic features. For example to even get the size of map I'd have to write a util method. 2) Use a Dictionary What does this standard library class provide over the simple object? It seems silly for it to exist if it's functionally identical to Object. 3) Go download some custom HashMap/HashTable implementation from the web. I've used a lot of modern languages, and this is the first time I haven't been able to find a library implementation of an associative array within 5 minutes. So I'd like to get some best-practice advice from an experienced flash developer. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • effective counter for unique number of visits in PHP & MySQL

    - by Adnan
    Hello, I am creating a counter for unique number of visits on a post, so what I have until now is a table for storing data like this; cvp_post_id | cvp_ip | cvp_user_id In cases a registered user visits a post, for the first time a record is inserted with cpv_post_id and cvp_user_id, so for his next visit I query the table and if the record is available I do not count him as a new visitor. In cases of an anonymous user the same happens but now the cvp_ip and cpv_post_id are used. My concerns is that I do a query every time anyone visits a post for checking if there has been a visit, what would be a more effective way for doing this?

    Read the article

  • Guidelines for LBS Mobile application development

    - by Suriyan Suresh
    i need some help!, i am planning to develop such LBS Mobile Application which find nearest things based on gps data from mobile. 1.what are the best free and (preferably) open source technologies for development?. 2.What programming language to use for development of such application?. 3.what are the points to be considered? I need the general overview of the requirements for planning, I was interested in having a general understanding of the data, tools, and frameworks required to accomplish the job.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • Is there any difference between var name = function() {} & function name() {} in Javascript?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    Suppose we are inside a function and not in the global namespace. function someGlobalFunction() { var utilFunction1 = function() { } function utilFunction2 () { } utilFunction1(); utilFunction2(); } Are these synonymous? And do these functions completely cease to exist when someGlobalFunction returns? Should I prefer one or the other for readability or some other reason?

    Read the article

  • Is it advisable to have an interface as the return type?

    - by wb
    I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface? Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic. protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class { return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success)); } public IMessage Validate() { if (name.Length < 5) { validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater."); } else { validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid."); } return validateReturnType; } Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Method returns an IDisposable - Should I dispose of the result, even if it's not assigned to anythin

    - by mjd79
    This seems like a fairly straightforward question, but I couldn't find this particular use-case after some searching around. Suppose I have a simple method that, say, determines if a file is opened by some process. I can do this (not 100% correctly, but fairly well) with this: public bool IsOpen(string fileName) { try { File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None); } catch { // if an exception is thrown, the file must be opened by some other process return true; } } (obviously this isn't the best or even correct way to determine this - File.Open throws a number of different exceptions, all with different meanings, but it works for this example) Now the File.Open call returns a FileStream, and FileStream implements IDisposable. Normally we'd want to wrap the usage of any FileStream instantiations in a using block to make sure they're disposed of properly. But what happens in the case where we don't actually assign the return value to anything? Is it still necessary to dispose of the FileStream, like so: try { using (File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); { /* nop */ } } catch { return true; } Should I create a FileStream instance and dispose of that? try { using (FileStream fs = File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); } ... Or are these totally unnecessary? Can we simply call File.Open and not assign it to anything (first code example), and let the GC dispose of it right away?

    Read the article

  • Can I use an abstract class instead of a private __construct() when creating a singleton in PHP?

    - by Pheter
    When creating a Singleton in PHP, I ensure that it cannot be instantiated by doing the following: class Singleton { private function __construct() {} private function __clone() {} public static function getInstance() {} } However, I realised that defining a class as 'abstract' means that it cannot be instantiated. So is there anything wrong with doing the following instead: abstract class Singleton { public static function getInstance() {} } The second scenario allows me to write fewer lines of code which would be nice. (Not that it actually makes much of a difference.)

    Read the article

  • java swt design patterns

    - by zachary
    What are some good design patterns for creating a form in java? I have an app that has 6 tabs with a different form in each. How does the typical java programmer go about making these items accessible? For example as a wpf programmer I might databind all these controls to underlying objects. What do java programmers like to do?

    Read the article

  • What do you do in your source control repository when you start a rewrite of a program?

    - by Max Schmeling
    I wrote an application a while back and have been maintaining it for a while now, but it's gotten to the point where there's several major new features to be added, a ton of changes that need made, and I know quite a few things I could do better, so I'm starting a rewrite of the entire program (using bits and pieces from original). My question is, what do you do with SVN at this point? Should I put the new version somewhere else, or should I delete the files I no longer need, add the new files, and just treat it like normal development in SVN? How have you handled this in the past?

    Read the article

  • Double use of variables?

    - by Vaccano
    I have read that a variable should never do more than one thing. Overloading a variable to do more than one thing is bad. Because of that I end up writing code like this: (With the customerFound variable) bool customerFound = false; Customer foundCustomer = null; if (currentCustomer.IsLoaded) { if (customerIDToFind = currentCustomer.ID) { foundCustomer = currentCustomer; customerFound = true; } } else { foreach (Customer customer in allCustomers) { if (customerIDToFind = customer.ID) { foundCustomer = customer; customerFound = true; } } } if (customerFound) { // Do something } But deep down inside, I sometimes want to write my code like this: (Without the foundCustomer variable) Customer foundCustomer = null; if (currentCustomer.IsLoaded) { if (customerIDToFind = currentCustomer.ID) { foundCustomer = currentCustomer; } } else { foreach (Customer customer in allCustomers) { if (customerIDToFind = customer.ID) { foundCustomer = customer; } } } if (foundCustomer != null) { // Do something } Does this secret desires make me an evil programmer? (i.e. is the second case really bad coding practice?)

    Read the article

  • Best practice: How to persist simple data without a database in django?

    - by Infinity
    I'm building a website that doesn't require a database because a REST API "is the database". (Except you don't want to be putting site-specific things in there, since the API is used by mostly mobile clients) However there's a few things that normally would be put in a database, for example the "jobs" page. You have master list view, and the detail views for each job, and it should be easy to add new job entries. (not necessarily via a CMS, but that would be awesome) e.g. example.com/careers/ and example.com/careers/77/ I could just hardcode this stuff in templates, but that's no DRY- you have to update the master template and the detail template every time. What do you guys think? Maybe a YAML file? Or any better ideas? Thx

    Read the article

  • Is it considered bad practice to have ViewModel objects hold the Dispatcher?

    - by stiank81
    My WPF application is structured using the MVVM pattern. The ViewModels will communicate asynchronously with a server, and when the requested data is returned a callback in the ViewModel is triggered, and it will do something with this data. This will run on a thread which is not the UI Thread. Sometimes these callbacks involve work that needs to be done on the UI thread, so I need the Dispatcher. This might be things such as: Adding data to an ObservableCollection Trigger Prism commands that will set something to be displayed in the GUI Creating WPF objects of some kind. I try to avoid the latter, but the two first points here I find to be reasonable things for ViewModels to do. So; is it okay to have ViewModels hold the Dispatcher to be able to Invoke commands for the UI thread? Or is this considered bad practice? And why?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    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 | 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121  | Next Page >