Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst practices'.

Page 115/268 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

• where to store temporary data in MVC 2.0 project

  - by StuffHappens

  Hello! I'm starting to learn MVC 2.0 and I'm trying to create a site with a quiz: user is asked a question and given several options of answer. If he chooses the right answer he gets some points, if he doesn't, he looses them. I tried to do this the following way public class HomeController : Controller { private ITaskGenerator taskGenerator = new TaskGenerator(); private string correctAnswer; public ActionResult Index() { var task = taskGenerator .GenerateTask(); ViewData["Task"] = task.Task; ViewData["Options"] = task.Options; correctAnswer= task.CorrectAnswer; return View(); } public ActionResult Answer(string id) { if (id == correctAnswer) return View("Correct") return View("Incorrect"); } } But I have a problem: when user answers the cotroller class is recreated and I loose correct answer. So what is the best place to store correct answer? Should I create a static class for this purpose? Thanks for your help!

  Read the article

• Should I start with Trac 0.12 ?

  - by mree

  I'm going to start using Trac for the first time. From what I've gathered, the latest 0.12 is capable of supporting multiple project easily (which is something I will need since I got about 5 projects). However, it seems 0.12 is still in the development (0.12-dev). So, my question is, is it good enough for a newbie in Trac like me to use it? Does anyone has any experience using it ? It will be installed on a Linux server. BTW, I'll only be using the basic functions such as svn browser, wiki, tickets and others.

  Read the article

• Is this multi line if statement too complex?

  - by AndHeCodedIt

  I am validating input on a form and attempting to prompt the user of improper input(s) based on the combination of controls used. For example, I have 2 combo boxes and 3 text boxes. The 2 combo boxes must always have a value other than the first (default) value, but one of three, or two of three, or all text boxes can be filled to make the form valid. In one such scenario I have a 6 line if statement to try to make the test easily readable: if ((!String.Equals(ComboBoxA.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_A_CHOICE.ToString()) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxA.Text) && !String.Equals(ComboBoxB.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_B_CHOICE.ToString())) || (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxB.Text) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxC.Text))) { //Do Some Validation } I have 2 questions: Should this type of if statement be avoided at all cost? Would it be better to enclose this test in another method? (This would be a good choice as this validation will happen in more than one scenario) Thanks for your input(s)!

  Read the article

• Arguments against Create or Update

  - by Nix

  Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

  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

• Returning back to the results after editing

  - by Parhs

  Hello, I am developing an application which has several CRUD actions... I am using Java and i am forced to use Struts framework. My problem is: I have a search page which returns some results.The user can click at a result and then he goes to another edit-page... He may apply changes or not...What i need is a way to return at the result page again and at the same scroll position.Javascript must be enabled for this project however.. I am wondering which is the best practice to achieve this effect... A solution would be to save the last search URL but i know that this wouldnt work if the user has multiple results. I know how to do it but i am lloking for a good practice!

  Read the article

• Best way to force Spring shutdown from a bean?

  - by xcut

  My application uses a Spring DefaultMessageListenerContainer to process incoming messages. The main method of the app already registers a shutdown hook. Question is this: what is the best way to force the application context to shut down? If I throw a RuntimeException in the message listener, it is handled by the container, and not passed on. Is calling System.exit acceptable? Do I pass along the ApplicationContext to every class that needs to shut down, so I can call close() on it?

  Read the article

• Validation - Data Integrity

  - by Thomas

  A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

  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

• MemoryStream instance timing help

  - by rod

  Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

  Read the article

• Is there a class like a Dictionary without a Value template? Is HashSet<T> the correct answer?

  - by myotherme

  I have 3 tables: Foos, Bars and FooBarConfirmations I want to have a in-memory list of FooBarConfirmations by their hash: FooID BarID Hash 1 1 1_1 2 1 2_1 1 2 1_2 2 2 2_2 What would be the best Class to use to store this type of structure in-memory, so that I can quickly check to see if a combination exists like so: list.Contains("1_2"); I can do this with Dictionary<string,anything>, but it "feels" wrong. HashSet looks like the right tool for the job, but does it use some form of hashing algorithm in the background to do the lookups efficiently?

  Read the article

• Should I *always* import my file references into the database in drupal?

  - by sprugman

  I have a cck type with an image field, and a unique_id text field. The file name of the image is based on the unique_id. All of the content, including the image itself is being generated automatically via another process, and I'm parsing what that generates into nodes. Rather than creating separate fields for the id and the image, and doing an official import of the image into the files table, I'm tempted to only create the id field and create the file reference in the theme layer. I can think of pros and cons: 1) Theme Layer Approach Pros: makes the import process much less complex don't have to worry about syncing the db with the file system as things change more flexible -- I can move my images around more easily if I want Cons: maybe not as much The Drupal Way™ not as pure -- I'll wind up with more logic on the theme side. 2) Import Approach Pros: import method is required if we ever wanted to make the files private (we won't.) safer? Maybe I'll know if there's a problem with the image at import time, rather than view time. Since I'll be bulk importing, that might make a difference. if I delete a node through the admin interface, drupal might be able to delete the file for me, as well. Con: more complex import and maintenance All else being equal, simpler is always better, so I'm leaning toward #1. Are there any other issues I'm missing? (Since this is an open ended question, I guess I'll make it a community wiki, whatever that means.)

  Read the article

• Is this SQL select code following good practice?

  - by acidzombie24

  I am using sqlite and will port to mysql (5) later. I wanted to know if I am doing something I shouldnt be doing. I tried purposely to design so I'll compare to 0 instead of 1 (I changed hasApproved to NotApproved to do this, not a big deal and I haven't written any code). I was told I never need to write a subquery but I do here. My Votes table is just id, ip, postid (I don't think I can write that subquery as a join instead?) and that's pretty much all that is on my mind. Naming conventions I don't really care about since the tables are created via reflection and is all over the place. select id, name, body, upvotes, downvotes, (select 1 from UpVotes where IPAddr=? AND post=Post.id) as myup, (select 1 from DownVotes where IPAddr=@0 AND post=Post.id) as mydown from Post where flag = '0' limit ?, ?"

  Read the article

• Does MVC replace traditional manually created BLL?

  - by used2could

  I'm used to creating the UI, BLL, DAL by hand (some times I've used LINQ-to-SQL or SubSonic for the DAL). I've done several small projects using MVC since its release. On these projects I've still continued to write a BLL and DAL by hand and then incorporate those into the MVC's models/controllers. I'm looking to optimize my time on projects this seems like overkill and a potential waste of time. Question Would it be acceptable to roll a DAL such as SubSonic and directly use it in the Models/Controllers of my MVC web app? Now the models & controllers would act as the BLL. I just see this as a major timesaver to not have to worry about another tier. UPDATE: I just wanted to add that my concern isn't really with the DAL (I frequently use SubSonic and NH) but rather focus on the BLL. Sorry for the confusion.

  Read the article

• How do you handle multiple (overlapping) projects in trac?

  - by Oliver Giesen

  We are using trac and are really satisfied with it. However, out of the box, trac is best suited for single-project environments only. I'd be interested to hear about the various approaches people take to make it work with multiple projects nevertheless and their experiences with them. Are there any plugins to recommend? Any patches, tweaks or whatnots? Are you maybe even using an entirely different bug-tracking system that offers all of trac's functionality plus multi-project support? We recently started managing a second project ourselves which generally works okay but also has some drawbacks, especially where the two projects overlap because of common library code we wrote that is used in both projects. How do you handle this? (I'll attach our own current approach as an answer to this post.)

  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

• what if i keep my class members are public?

  - by anish

  In c++ instance variables are private by default,in Python variables are public by default i have two questions regarding the same:- 1: why Python have all the members are public by default? 2: People say you should your member data should be private what if i make my data to be public? what are the disadvantages of this approch? why it is a bad design?

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Best practice for writing sql statements in php.

  - by ghostz00

  Can someone point me towards a resource or show me an example of a good way of writing sql statements in php. Most statements seem so ugly and unreadable.

  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

< Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >