Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

Page 119/405 | < Previous Page | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >

  • Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

    - by byronh
    Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use an enum that maps to some seed data in a Database?

    - by skb
    I have a table in my database called "OrderItemType" which has about 5 records for the different OrderItemTypes in my system. Each OrderItem contains an OrderItemType, and this gives me referential integrity. In my middletier code, I also have an enum which matches the values in this table so that I can have business logic for the different types. My dev manager says he hates it when people do this, and I am not exactly sure why. Is there a better practice I should be following?

    Read the article

  • Is it against best practice to throw Exception on most JUnit tests?

    - by Chris Knight
    Almost all of my JUnit tests are written with the following signature: public void testSomething() throws Exception My reasoning is that I can focus on what I'm testing rather than exception handling which JUnit appears to give me for free. But am I missing anything by doing this? Is it against best practice? Would I gain anything by explicitly catching specific exceptions in my test and then fail()'ing on them?

    Read the article

  • What's the standard behaviour for an out parameter when a TryXxxx method returns false?

    - by Matt Lacey
    Assuming a method with the following signature bool TryXxxx(object something, out int toReturn) What is it acceptable for toReturn to be if TryXxxx returns false? In that it's infered that toReturn should never be used if TryXxxx fails does it matter? If toReturn was a nulable type, then it would make sense to return null. But int isn't nullable and I don't want to have to force it to be. If toReturn is always a certain value if TryXxxx fails we risk having the position where 2 values could be considered to indicate the same thing. I can see this leading to potential possible confusion if the 'default' value was returned as a valid response (when TryXxxx returns true). From an implementation point if view it looks like having toReturn be a[ny] value is easiest, but is there anything more important to consider?

    Read the article

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • How to check for mip-map availability in OpenGL?

    - by Xavier Ho
    Recently I bumped into a problem where my OpenGL program would not render textures correctly on a 2-year-old Lenovo laptop with an nVidia Quadro 140 card. It runs OpenGL 2.1.2, and GLSL 1.20, but when I turned on mip-mapping, the whole screen is black, with no warnings or errors. This is my texture filter code: glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_GENERATE_MIPMAP, GL_TRUE); After 40 minutes of fiddling around, I found out mip-mapping was the problem. Turning it off fixed it: // glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR_MIPMAP_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER, GL_LINEAR); // glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_GENERATE_MIPMAP, GL_TRUE); I get a lot of aliasing, but at least the program is visible and runs fine. Finally, two questions: What's the best or standard way to check if mip-mapping is available on a machine, aside from checking OpenGL versions? If mip-mapping is not available, what's the best work-around to avoid aliasing?

    Read the article

  • What are the reasons for casting a void pointer?

    - by Maulrus
    I'm learning C++ from scratch, and as such I don't have an expert understanding of C. In C++, you can't cast a void pointer to whatever, and I understand the reasons behind that. However, I know that in C, you can. What are the possible reasons for this? It just seems like it's be a huge hole in type safety, which (to me) seems like a bad thing.

    Read the article

  • replace values in a String from a Hashtable in Java

    - by Adnan
    My string looks like; String values = "I am from UK, and you are from FR"; and my hashtable; Hashtable countries = new Hashtable(); countries.put("United Kingdom", new String("UK")); countries.put("France", new String("FR")); What would be the most effective way to change the values in my string with the values from the hashtable accordingly. These are just 2 values to change, but in my case I will have 100+

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Standard Workflow when working with JPA

    - by jschoen
    I am currently trying to wrap my head around working with JPA. I can't help but feel like I am missing something or doing it the wrong way. It just seems forced so far. What I think I know so far is that their are couple of ways to work with JPA and tools to support this. You can do everything in Java using annotations, and let JPA (whatever implementation you decide to use) create your schema and update it when changes are made. You can use a tool to reverse engineer you database and generate the entity classes for you. When the schema is updated you have to regenerate these classes, or manually update them. There seems to be drawbacks to both, and benefits to both (as with all things). My question is in an ideal situation what is the standard workflow with JPA? Most schemas will require updates during the maintenance phase and especially during the development phase, so how is this handled?

    Read the article

  • How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

    - by Roman
    At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • Migrating a simple application from Application Delegate to ViewController Class

    - by eco_bach
    Hi Frst of all wanted to send out a huge thanks for the great feedback and support. I have a simple application working, right now simply loads a sequence of images and alows the user to step thru the images by clicking a button. All of my logic is in my Application Delegate class, with the image loading, initialization of UIImage Views etc happening in my applicationDidFinishLaunching method. My next step is to migrate as much as possible all of the logic from this class to a ViewController, to take advantage of the extra functionality etc in viewcontrollers. All my images and imageViews are initialized like the following in my applicationDidFinishLaunching. img = [UIImage imageWithContentsOfFile:[[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@image1.jpg" ofType:nil]]; imgView = [[UIImageView alloc] initWithImage:img]; How would I migrate this to a ViewController based application? Where would I put all of the logic currently in my applicationDidFinishLaunching method, or for loading of images, is it necessary to only load them here? Any feedback, tips, suggestions appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to call superconstructor in a neat way

    - by sandis
    So here is my code: public MyClass (int y) { super(y,x,x); //some code } My problem is that in this case i want to generate a 'x' and sent to the super constructor. However the call to the superconstructor must be the first line in this constructor. Of course I could do something like this: int x; { x = generateX(); } But this feels ugly, and then the code will run no matter what constructor I use, which feels not so nice. Right now I am consider encapsulating my whole object in another object that only calculates x and then starts this object. Is this the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to put link to SO questions in a program comments?

    - by WizardOfOdds
    In quite some codebase you can see comments stating things like: // Workaround for defect 'xxx', (See bug 1434594 on Sun's bugparade) So I've got a few questions, but they're all related. Is it OK to put link to SO questions in a program's comments: // We're now mapping from the "sorted-on column" to original indices. // // There's apparently no easy way to do this in Java, so we're // re-inventing a wheel. // // (see why here, in SO question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/951848) Do you do it? And what are the drawbacks in doing so? (see my first comment for a terrible drawback)

    Read the article

  • What is a good practice to access class attributes in class methods?

    - by Clem
    I always wonder about the best way to access a class attribute from a class method in Java. Could you quickly convince me about which one of the 3 solutions below (or a totally different one :P) is a good practice? public class Test { String a; public String getA(){ return this.a; } public setA(String a){ this.a = a; } // Using Getter public void display(){ // Solution 1 System.out.println(this.a); // Solution 2 System.out.println(getA()); // Solution 3 System.out.println(this.getA()); } // Using Setter public void myMethod(String b, String c){ // Solution 1 this.a = b + c; // Solution 2 setA(b + c); // Solution 3 this.setA(b + c); } }

    Read the article

  • Communication between layers in an application

    - by Petar Minchev
    Hi guys! Let's assume we have the following method in the business layer. What's the best practice to tell the UI layer that something went wrong and give also the error message? Should the method return an empty String when it was OK, otherwise the error message, or should it throw another exception in the catch code wrapping the caught exception? If we choose the second variant then the UI should have another try,catch which is too much try,catch maybe. Here is a pseudocode for the first variant. public String updateSomething() { try { //Begin transaction here dataLayer.do1(); dataLayer.do2(); dataLayer.doN(); } catch(Exception exc) { //Rollback transaction code here return exc.message; } return ""; } Is this a good practice or should I throw another exception in the catch(then the method will be void)?

    Read the article

  • How to use a 3rd party control inside the viewmodel?

    - by Sander
    I have a 3rd party control which among other things performs loading of some data. I want my viewmodel to keep track of this load operation and adjust its own state accordingly. If it were up to me, I'd do the data loading far away from the view, but it is not. So, I seem to be in the situation where my viewmodel depends on my view. How do I best handle this? I feel rather dirty making the view publish events to the viewmodel but I don't see any other reasonable way to get this info into the viewmodel. A similar situation might crop up with standard controls, too - imagine if your viewmodel depends on the events coming from a MediaElement - how do you properly model this? Do you put the MediaElement into the viewmodel? That doesn't sound right. If publishing the events to the viewmodel is indeed the most reasonable way, is there some common pattern used for this? How do you do it?

    Read the article

  • Program structure in long running data processing python script

    - by fmark
    For my current job I am writing some long-running (think hours to days) scripts that do CPU intensive data-processing. The program flow is very simple - it proceeds into the main loop, completes the main loop, saves output and terminates: The basic structure of my programs tends to be like so: <import statements> <constant declarations> <misc function declarations> def main(): for blah in blahs(): <lots of local variables> <lots of tightly coupled computation> for something in somethings(): <lots more local variables> <lots more computation> <etc., etc.> <save results> if __name__ == "__main__": main() This gets unmanageable quickly, so I want to refactor it into something more manageable. I want to make this more maintainable, without sacrificing execution speed. Each chuck of code relies on a large number of variables however, so refactoring parts of the computation out to functions would make parameters list grow out of hand very quickly. Should I put this sort of code into a python class, and change the local variables into class variables? It doesn't make a great deal of sense tp me conceptually to turn the program into a class, as the class would never be reused, and only one instance would ever be created per instance. What is the best practice structure for this kind of program? I am using python but the question is relatively language-agnostic, assuming a modern object-oriented language features.

    Read the article

  • JavaScript-library-based Project Organization

    - by Laith J
    Hello, I'm very new to the JavaScript library world. I have used JS by itself before to create a mini social network but this is the first time I use a JS library and I really don't know how to go about this. I'm planning to use Google Closure and I'm really not sure how I should go about organizing the code. Should I put everything in one file since it's a web app and should have one screen? Should I separate the code to many chunks and put them in different files? Or should I put different dialogs (like settings) in a separate page and thus a separate file? Like all programmers I'm a perfectionist so please help me out with this one, thanks.

    Read the article

  • how to merge ecommerce transaction data between two databases

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >