Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst 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 114/268 | < Previous Page | 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121  | Next Page >

  • Should every class have its own namespace?

    - by thehouse
    Something that has been troubling me for a while: The current wisdom is that types should be kept in a namespace that only contains functions which are part of the type's non-member interface (see C++ Coding Standards Sutter and Alexandrescu or here) to prevent ADL pulling in unrelated definitions. Does this imply that all classes must have a namespace of their own? If we assume that a class may be augmented in the future by the addition of non-member functions, then it can never be safe to put two types in the same namespace as either one of them may introduce non-member functions that could interfere with the other. The reason I ask is that namespaces are becoming cumbersome for me. I'm writing a header-only library and I find myself using classes names such as project::component::class_name::class_name. Their implementations call helper functions but as these can't be in the same namespace they also have to be fully qualified!

    Read the article

  • Why do people keep parsing HTML using regex? [closed]

    - by polygenelubricants
    As much as I love regular expressions, it's obvious to me that it's not the best tool for parsing HTML, especially given the numerous good HTML parsers out there. And yet there are numerous questions on stackoverflow that attempts to parse HTML using regex. And people would always point out what a bad idea that is in the comments. And the accepted answer would often have a disclaimer how this isn't really the ideal way of doing things. But based on the constant flow of questions, it still seems that people keep parsing HTML using regex, despite the perceived difficulty in reading and maintaining it (and that's putting correctness aside for now). So my question is: why? Is it because it's easy to learn? Is it because it's faster? Is it because it's the industry standard? Is it because there are already so many reusable regexes to build from? Is it because 100% correctness is never really the objective? (90% good enough?) etc... I'd also like to hear from the downvoters why they did so. Is it because: There's absolutely nothing wrong with using regex to parse HTML and asking "Why?" is just dumb? The premise of the question is flawed because the people who are using regex to parse HTML is such a small minority?

    Read the article

  • Lock thread using somthing other than a object

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for near reuse of model components?

    - by Chris Knight
    I have a requirement to use a Fund model in my code. It will contain a fund name and fund code. In the interest of reuse I've poked around the package containing the other models used and found an existing Fund model. However the issue here is that, in addition to fund name and code, it also contains an amount. Amount isn't directly relevant in my context. So, do I: 1) Use the existing Fund model as is, ignoring the setters/getters for fund amount. 2) Put a FundDescription interface onto the existing Fund model for accessing only the information I'm interested in. 3) Make a FundDescription base class from which the existing Fund model could now extend 4) Create a whole new seperate model since the two are slightly contextually different

    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

  • best practice when referring to a program's name in C

    - by guest
    what is considered best practice when referring to a program's name? i've seen #define PROGRAM_NAME "myprog" printf("this is %s\n", PROGRAM_NAME); as well as printf("this is %s\n", argv[0]); i know, that the second approach will give me ./myprog rather than myprog when the program is not called from $PATH and that the first approach will guarantee consistence regarding the program's name. but is there anything else, that makes one approach superior to the other?

    Read the article

  • Which user account to assign as owner when attaching an SQL Server database?

    - by FreshCode
    This is a simple database security & performance question, but I've always used either a special user (eg. mydbuser), or Windows' built-in NETWORK SECURITY account as the owner when attaching databases to my SQL Server instances. When deploying my database to a production server, is there a specific user I should stick to or avoid? I would think that using an account with a set password could open the database up to a potential security issue.

    Read the article

  • How to have the controller change its behavior depending on the view?

    - by Ian Boyd
    If from one view a user enters some invalid data, e.g.:     E-mail: [email protected]     then i want the controller to: not place the data into the model color the text box reddish not allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box reddish allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box bluish allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: place the data into the model leave the text box uncolored allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model color the text-box reddish allow the user to have And it's possible for another view to: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model update the view with the new data color the text-box bluish allow the user to save [ad infinitum] Without using n-controllers for n-views, how do i do this?

    Read the article

  • Why would you precede the main() function in C with a data type?

    - by Milktrader
    Many are familiar with the hello world program in C #include <stdio.h> main () { printf ("hello world"); return 0; } Why do some precede the main () function with int as in: int main() Also, I've seen the word 'void' entered inside the () as in: int main(void) It seems like extra typing for nothing, but maybe it's a best practice that pays dividends in other situations? Also, why precede main() with an int if you're returning a character string? If anything, one would expect: char main(void) I'm also foggy about why we return 0 at the end of the function.

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

  • Reference table values in a war against magic numbers

    - by Alex N.
    This question bugged me for years now and can't seem to find good solution still. I working in PHP and Java but it sounds like this maybe language-agnostic :) Say we have a standard status reference table that holds status ids for some kind of entity. Further let's assume the table will have just 5 values, and will remain like this for a long time, maybe edited occasionally with addition of a new status. When you fetch a row and need to see what status it is you have 2 options(as I see it at least) - put it straight ID values(magic numbers that is) or use a named constant. Latter seem much cleaner, the question though is where those named constants should leave? In a model class? In a class that uses this particular constant? Somewhere else?

    Read the article

  • Rapid Opening and Closing System.IO.StreamWriter in C#

    - by ccomet
    Suppose you have a file that you are programmatically logging information into with regards to a process. Kinda like your typical debug Console.WriteLine, but due to the nature of the code you're testing, you don't have a console to write onto so you have to write it somewhere like a file. My current program uses System.IO.StreamWriter for this task. My question is about the approach to using the StreamWriter. Is it better to open just one StreamWriter instance, do all of the writes, and close it when the entire process is done? Or is it a better idea to open a new StreamWriter instance to write a line into the file, then immediately close it, and do this for every time something needs to be written in? In the latter approach, this would probably be facilitated by a method that would do just that for a given message, rather than bloating the main process code with excessive amounts of lines. But having a method to aid in that implementation doesn't necessarily make it the better choice. Are there significant advantages to picking one approach or the other? Or are they functionally equivalent, leaving the choice on the shoulders of the programmer?

    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

  • Books on Debugging Techniques?

    - by zooropa
    Are there any books on debugging techniques? A friend of mine is learning to code and he asked me this question. I told him I don't know of any. Is it that you just have to go through the School of Hard Knocks to learn?

    Read the article

  • #Define Compiler Directive in C#

    - by pm_2
    In C, I could declare a compiler directive as follows: #define MY_NUMBER 10 However, in C#, I only appear to be able to do this: #define MY_NUMBER Which is obviously useless in this case. Is this correct, or am I doing something wrong? If not, can anyone suggest a way of doing this, either at namespace or solution level? I thought of maybe creating a static class, but that seems to be overkill for one value.

    Read the article

  • Finding relative libraries when using symlinks to ruby executables

    - by dgtized
    Imagine you have an executable foo.rb, with libraries bar.rb layed out in the following manner: <root>/bin/foo.rb <root>/lib/bar.rb In the header of foo.rb you place the following require to bring in functionality in bar.rb: require File.dirname(__FILE__)+"../lib/bar.rb" This works fine so long as all calls to foo.rb are direct. If you put as say $HOME/project, and symlink foo.rb into $HOME/usr/bin, then __FILE__ resolves to $HOME/usr/bin/foo.rb, and is thus unable to locate bar.rb in relation to the dirname for foo.rb. I realize that packaging systems such as rubygems fix this by creating a namespace to search for the library, and that it is also possible to adjust the load_path using $: to include $HOME/project/lib, but it seems as if a more simple solution should exist. Has anyone had experience with this problem and found a useful solution or recipe?

    Read the article

  • How to send complete POST to Model in Code Igniter

    - by Constant M
    Hi there, What would be the best way to send a complete post to a model in Code Igniter? Methods I know are as follow: Name form elements as array, eg. <input type="text" name="contact[name]"> <input type="text" name="contact[surname]"> and then use: $this->Model_name->add_contact($this->input->post('contact')); The other would be to add each element to an array and then send it to the model as such: <input type="text" name="name"> <input type="text" name="surname"> and $contact_array = array('name' => $this->input->post('name'), 'surname' => $this->input->post('surname')); $this->Model_name->add_contact($this->input->post('contact')); Which one of these would be best practice, and is there a way to directly send a whole POST to a model (or a whole form maybe?)

    Read the article

  • How do you remove/clean-up code which is no longer used?

    - by clarke ching
    So, we have a project which had to be radically descoped in order to ship on time. It's got a lot of code left in it which is not actually used. I want to clean up the code, removing any dead-wood. I have the authority to do it and I can convince people that it's a commercially sensible thing to do. [I have a lot of automated unit tests, some automated acceptance tests and a team of testers who can manually regression test.] My problem: I'm a manager and I don't know technically how to go about it. Any help?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't String's hashCode() cache 0?

    - by polygenelubricants
    I noticed in the Java 6 source code for String that hashCode only caches values other than 0. The difference in performance is exhibited by the following snippet: public class Main{ static void test(String s) { long start = System.currentTimeMillis(); for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) { s.hashCode(); } System.out.format("Took %d ms.%n", System.currentTimeMillis() - start); } public static void main(String[] args) { String z = "Allocator redistricts; strict allocator redistricts strictly."; test(z); test(z.toUpperCase()); } } Running this in ideone.com gives the following output: Took 1470 ms. Took 58 ms. So my questions are: Why doesn't String's hashCode() cache 0? What is the probability that a Java string hashes to 0? What's the best way to avoid the performance penalty of recomputing the hash value every time for strings that hash to 0? Is this the best-practice way of caching values? (i.e. cache all except one?) For your amusement, each line here is a string that hash to 0: pollinating sandboxes amusement & hemophilias schoolworks = perversive electrolysissweeteners.net constitutionalunstableness.net grinnerslaphappier.org BLEACHINGFEMININELY.NET WWW.BUMRACEGOERS.ORG WWW.RACCOONPRUDENTIALS.NET Microcomputers: the unredeemed lollipop... Incentively, my dear, I don't tessellate a derangement. A person who never yodelled an apology, never preened vocalizing transsexuals.

    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 >