Search Results

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

Page 121/348 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

  • Interface Design Problem: Storing Result of Transactions

    - by jboyd
    Requirements: multiple sources of input (social media content) into a system multiple destinations of output (social media api's) sources and destinations WILL be added some pseudo: IContentProvider contentProvider = context.getBean("contentProvider"); List<Content> toPost = contentProvider.getContent(); for (Content c : toPost) { SocialMediaPresence smPresence = socialMediaService.getSMPresenceBySomeId(c.getDestId()); smPresence.hasTwitter(); smPresence.hasFacebook(); //just to show what this is smPresence.postContent(c); //post content could fail for some SM platforms, but shoulnd't be lost forever } So now I run out of steam, I need to know what content has been successfully posted, and if it hasn't gone too all platforms, or if another platform were added in the future that content needs to go out for it as well (therefore my content provider will need to not only know if content has gone out, but for what platforms). I'm not looking for code, although sample/pseudo is fine... I'm looking for an approach to this problem that I can implement

    Read the article

  • Perform Grouping of Resultsets in Code, not on Database Level

    - by NinjaBomb
    Stackoverflowers, I have a resultset from a SQL query in the form of: Category Column2 Column3 A 2 3.50 A 3 2 B 3 2 B 1 5 ... I need to group the resultset based on the Category column and sum the values for Column2 and Column3. I have to do it in code because I cannot perform the grouping in the SQL query that gets the data due to the complexity of the query (long story). This grouped data will then be displayed in a table. I have it working for specific set of values in the Category column, but I would like a solution that would handle any possible values that appear in the Category column. I know there has to be a straightforward, efficient way to do it but I cannot wrap my head around it right now. How would you accomplish it? EDIT I have attempted to group the result in SQL using the exact same grouping query suggested by Thomas Levesque and both times our entire RDBMS crashed trying to process the query. I was under the impression that Linq was not available until .NET 3.5. This is a .NET 2.0 web application so I did not think it was an option. Am I wrong in thinking that? EDIT Starting a bounty because I believe this would be a good technique to have in the toolbox to use no matter where the different resultsets are coming from. I believe knowing the most concise way to group any 2 somewhat similar sets of data in code (without .NET LINQ) would be beneficial to more people than just me.

    Read the article

  • Should I worry about reigning in namespace number/length/scope?

    - by Jay
    I've recently reorganized a solution-in-progress from 24 projects to 4. To keep the copious files organized in the "main" project, things are in folders in folders in folders. I think I've preserved a logical, discoverable arrangement of the solution content. As a result, of course, I end up with namespaces like AppName.DataAccess.NHibernate.Fluent.Mappings. Is there any compelling reason that I should care about flattening out the namespace hierarchy when my project has a somewhat deeply nested folder structure? (I am not concerned about resolving or managing using directives; I let ReSharper do all the heavy lifting here.)

    Read the article

  • Refering to javascript instance methods with a pound/hash sign

    - by Josh
    This question is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/736120/why-are-methods-in-ruby-documentation-preceded-by-a-pound-sign I understand why in Ruby instance methods are proceeded with a pound sign, helping to differentiate talking about SomeClass#someMethod from SomeObject.someMethod and allowing rdoc to work. And I understand that the authors of PrototypeJS admire Ruby (with good reason) and so they use the hash mark convention in their documentation. My question is: is this a standard practice amongst JavaScript developers or is it just Prototype developers who do this? Asked another way, is it proepr for me to refer to instance methods in comments/documentation as SomeClass#someMethod? Or should my documentation refer to `SomeClass.someMethod?

    Read the article

  • How to record different authentication types (username / password vs token based) in audit log

    - by RM
    I have two types of users for my system, normal human users with a username / password, and delegation authorized accounts through OAuth (i.e. using a token identifier). The information that is stored for each is quite different, and are managed by different subsytems. They do however interact with the same tables / data within the system, so I need to maintain the audit trail regardless of whether human user, or token-based user modified the data. My solution at the moment is to have a table called something like AuditableIdentity, and then have the two types inheriting off that table (either in the single table, or as two seperate tables with 1 to 1 PK with AuditableIdentity. All operations would use the common AuditableIdentity PK for CreatedBy, ModifiedBy etc columns. There isn't any FK constraint on the audit columns, so any text can go in there, but I want an easy way to easily determine whether it was a human or system that made the change, and joining to the one AuditableIdentity table seems like a clean way to do that? Is there a best practice for this scenario? Is this an appropriate way of approaching the problem - or would you not bother with the common table and just rely on joins (to the two seperate un-related user / token tables) later to determine which user type matches which audit records?

    Read the article

  • Abstract Factory Using Generics: Is Explicitly Converting a Specified Type to Generic a Bad Practice

    - by Merritt
    The question's title says it all. I like how it fits into the rest of my code, but does it smell? public interface IFoo<T> { T Bar { get; set; } } public class StringFoo : IFoo<string> { public string Bar { get; set; } } public static class FooFactory { public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>() { if (typeof(T) == typeof(string)) { return new StringFoo() as IFoo<T>; } throw new NotImplementedException(); } } UPDATE: this is sort of a duplicate of Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

    Read the article

  • Is there a compelling reason to use quantifiers in Perl regular expressions instead of just repeatin

    - by Morinar
    I was performing a code review for a colleague and he had a regular expression that looked like this: if ($value =~ /^\d\d\d\d$/) { #do stuff } I told him he should change it to: if ($value =~ /^\d{4}$/) { #do stuff } To which he replied that he preferred the first for readability (I find the second more readable, but that's a religious debate I'll save for another day). My question: is there an actual benefit to one over the other?

    Read the article

  • Standardizing a Release/Tools group on a specific language

    - by grahzny
    I'm part of a six-member build and release team for an embedded software company. We also support a lot of developer tools, such as Atlassian's Fisheye, Jira, etc., Perforce, Bugzilla, AnthillPro, and a couple of homebrew tools (like my Django release notes generator). Most of the time, our team just writes little plugins for larger apps (ex: customize workflows in Anthill), long-term utility scripts (package up a release for QA), or things like Perforce triggers (don't let people check into a specific branch unless their change description includes a bug number; authenticate against Active Directory instead of Perforce's internal passwords). That's about the scale of our problems, although we sometimes tackle something slightly more sizable. My boss, who is reasonably technical, has asked us to standardize on one or two languages so we can more easily substitute for each other. He's advocating bash scripts and Perl, due to their universality and simplicity. I can see his point--we mostly do "glue", so why not use "glue" languages rather than saddle ourselves with something designed for much larger projects? Since some of the tools we work with are Java-based, we do need to use something that speaks JVM sometimes. (The path of least resistance for these projects is BeanShell and Groovy.) I feel a tremendous itch toward language advocacy, but I'm trying to avoid saying "We should use Python 'cause I like it and Perl is gross." Instead, I'm trying to come up with a good approach to defining our problem set: what problems do we solve with scripts? Would we benefit from a library of common functions by our team, or are most of our projects more isolated? What is it reasonable to expect my co-workers to learn? What languages give us the most ease of development and ease of modification? Can you folks suggest some useful ways to approach this problem, both for my own thinking process and to help me facilitate some brainstorming among my coworkers?

    Read the article

  • Double associative array or indexed + associative array

    - by clover
    I'm undecided what's the best-practice approach for what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to enter data into an array where the data will look like this: apple color: red price: 2 orange color: orange price: 3 banana color: yellow price: 2 pineapple color: yellow price: 5 When I get input, let's say green apple (notice it's a combo of color + name of fruit), I'm going to check if the name of fruit part exists in the array and display its data (if it exists). What's the right way to compose those arrays? How would I do an indexed array containing an associative array? (or would this be better as 2 nested associative arrays, I'm guessing not)

    Read the article

  • when to use the abstract factory pattern?

    - by hguser
    Hi: I want to know when we need to use the abstract factory pattern. Here is an example,I want to know if it is necessary. The UML THe above is the abstract factory pattern, it is recommended by my classmate. THe following is myown implemention. I do not think it is necessary to use the pattern. And the following is some core codes: package net; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util.Properties; public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { DaoRepository dr=new DaoRepository(); AbstractDao dao=dr.findDao("sql"); dao.insert(); } } class DaoRepository { Map<String, AbstractDao> daoMap=new HashMap<String, AbstractDao>(); public DaoRepository () throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { Properties p=new Properties(); p.load(DaoRepository.class.getResourceAsStream("Test.properties")); initDaos(p); } public void initDaos(Properties p) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { String[] daoarray=p.getProperty("dao").split(","); for(String dao:daoarray) { AbstractDao ad=(AbstractDao)Class.forName(dao).newInstance(); daoMap.put(ad.getID(),ad); } } public AbstractDao findDao(String id) {return daoMap.get(id);} } abstract class AbstractDao { public abstract String getID(); public abstract void insert(); public abstract void update(); } class SqlDao extends AbstractDao { public SqlDao() {} public String getID() {return "sql";} public void insert() {System.out.println("sql insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("sql update");} } class AccessDao extends AbstractDao { public AccessDao() {} public String getID() {return "access";} public void insert() {System.out.println("access insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("access update");} } And the content of the Test.properties is just one line: dao=net.SqlDao,net.SqlDao So any ont can tell me if this suitation is necessary?

    Read the article

  • Design suggestions for creating document management structure using hidden shares.

    - by focus.nz
    I need to add some document management functionality into my software. Documents will be grouped by company name and project name. The folders need to be accessed by the application using the id numbers of clients/projects, but also easily browsed by the end user using windows explorer. Clients and Projects will be stored in a database. I am thinking of having the software create the folders using the friendly name and then using a hidden share with the id number for the software to access the files. The folder structure would be something like this --Company 1 (Company-1234$) -- Project 101 (Project-101$) -- Project 102 (Project-102$) -- Project 103 (Project-103$) -- Company 2 (Company-5678$) -- Project 201 (Project-201$) -- Project 202 (Project-202$) -- Project 203 (Project-203$) So in the example above there would be a company called "Company 1" with a ID of "1234". When browsing the folders using windows explorer the user would see \\ServerName\Documents\Company1 and you could also access the same folder from \\ServerName\Documents\Company-1234$ By using the hidden share, if the company name changes or its renamed for some reason it doesn't break the link in the application because its using the hidden shared based on the ID that never changes. Will having hundreds (maybe thousands) or hidden shares on a server provide a huge performance hit? Does any one have any suggestions or alternatives to provide this feature?

    Read the article

  • Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

    - by huntaub
    So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • VB Classes Best Practice - give all properties values?

    - by Becky Franklin
    Sorry if this is a bit random, but is it good practice to give all fields of a class a value when the class is instanciated? I'm just wondering if its better practice to have a constuctor that takes no parameters and gives all the fields default values, or whether fields that have values should be assigned and others left alone until required? I hope that makes sense, Becky

    Read the article

  • Common programming mistakes for Scala developers to avoid

    - by jelovirt
    In the spirit of Common programming mistakes for Java developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for JavaScript developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for .NET developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for Haskell developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for Python developers to avoid? Common Programming Mistakes for Ruby Developers to Avoid Common programming mistakes for PHP developers to avoid? what are some common mistakes made by Scala developers, and how can we avoid them? Also, as the biggest group of new Scala developers come from Java, what specific pitfalls they have to be aware of? For example, one often cited problem Java programmers moving to Scala make is use a procedural approach when a functional one would be more suitable in Scala. What other mistakes e.g. in API design newcomers should try to avoid.

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Implementation

    - by cedar715
    I was going through the 'Factory method' pages in SO and had come across this link. And this comment. The example looked as a variant and thought to implement in its original way: to defer instantiation to subclasses... Here is my attempt. Does the following code implements the Factory pattern of the example specified in the link? Please validate and suggest if this has to undergo any re-factoring. public class ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl implements ScheduleTypeFactory { @Override public IScheduleItem createLinearScheduleItem() { return new LinearScheduleItem(); } @Override public IScheduleItem createVODScheduleItem() { return new VODScheduleItem(); } } public class UseScheduleTypeFactory { public enum ScheduleTypeEnum { CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID, BroadbandScheduleTypeID, LinearCableScheduleTypeID, MobileLinearScheduleTypeID } public static IScheduleItem getScheduleItem(ScheduleTypeEnum scheduleType) { IScheduleItem scheduleItem = null; ScheduleTypeFactory scheduleTypeFactory = new ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl(); switch (scheduleType) { case CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case BroadbandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case LinearCableScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; case MobileLinearScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; default: break; } return scheduleItem; } }

    Read the article

  • R: disentangling scopes

    - by rescdsk
    Hi, Right now, in my R project, I have functions1.R with doFoo() and doBar(), functions2.R with other functions, and main.R with the main program in it, which first does source('functions1.R'); source('functions2.R'), and then calls the other functions. I've been starting the program from the R GUI in Mac OS X, with source('main.R'). This is fine the first time, but after that, the variables that were defined the first time through the program are defined for the second time functions*.R are sourced, and so the functions get a whole bunch of extra variables defined. I don't want that! I want an "undefined variable" error when my function uses a variable it shouldn't! Twice this has given me very late nights of debugging! So how do other people deal with this sort of problem? Is there something like source(), but that makes an independent namespace that doesn't fall through to the main one? Making a package seems like one solution, but it seems like a big pain in the butt compared to e.g. Python, where a source file is automatically a separate namespace. Any tips? Thank you!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >