Search Results

Search found 28590 results on 1144 pages for 'best pactice'.

Page 131/1144 | < Previous Page | 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138  | Next Page >

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • In which controller do you put the CRUD for the child part of a relationship?

    - by uriDium
    I am using ASP.Net MVC but this probably applies to all MVC patterns in general. My problem, for example I have companies and in each company I have a list of contacts. When I have selected a company I can see its details and a list of the contacts for that company. When I want to add a new contact for that company, should the implementation of that action go into the company controller as an "AddContact" action or should it go into the contact controller into a "New" action and we pass the Company ID in the URL? What is the usual way of dealing with this sort of thing in ASP.Net MVC? Is there a better stategy?

    Read the article

  • To "null" or not to "null" my class's attributes

    - by Helper Method
    When I write a class in Java, I like to initialize the attributes which are set to a default value directly and attributes which are set by the caller in the constructor, something like this: public class Stack<E> { private List<E> list; private size = 0; public Stack(int initialCapacity) { list = new ArrayList<E>(initialCapacity); } // remainder omitted } Now suppose I have a Tree class: public class Tree<E> { private Node<E> root = null; // no constructor needed, remainder omitted } Shall I set the root attribute to null, to mark that it is set to null by default, or omit the null value?

    Read the article

  • Approaching Java from a Ruby perspective

    - by Travis
    There are plenty of resources available to a Java developer for getting a jump-start into Ruby/Rails development. The reverse doesn't appear to be true. What resources would you suggest for getting up-to-date on the current state of java technologies? How about learning how to approach DRY (don't repeat yourself) without the use of metaprogramming? Or how to approach various scenarios where a ruby developer is used to passing in a function (proc/lambda/block) as an argument (callbacks, etc)?

    Read the article

  • Elegant solution for line-breaks (PHP)

    - by Nimbuz
    $var = "Hi there"."<br/>"."Welcome to my website"."<br/>;" echo $var; Is there an elegant way to handle line-breaks in PHP? I'm not sure about other languages, but C++ has eol so something thats more readable and elegant to use? Thanks

    Read the article

  • TCP Message Structure with XML

    - by metdos
    Hello Everybody, I'm sending messages over TCP/IP and on the other side I parse TCP message.For example this is one of the sent messages. $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&requestId=123&username=metdos&password=123)$EDKMSG Clarification: $DKMSG( //Start )$EDKMSG //End requestType //Parameter REQUEST_LOGIN //Parameter Value Now I also want to add an Xml file to my message. I'm considering this option: $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&xmlData= <Item id="56D@MIT" type="SIGNAL"> <Label> <Text>56D</Text> <X1>10</X1> <Y1>40</Y1> <RotateAngle>90</RotateAngle> </Label> <X1>0</X1> <Y1>20</Y1> <Width>35</Width> <Height>10</Height> <Source>sgs3lr</Source> </Item> )$EDKMSG There are problems with this way: 1-)It doesn't seem right to me. 2-)I have to handle delimeter "=" with much more care or I need to change it in parameters. What are your suggestions, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Use the serialVersionUID or suppress warnings?

    - by Okami
    Dear all, first thing to note is the serialVersionUID of a class implementing Interface Serializable is not in question. What if we create a class that for example extends HttpServlet? It also should have a serialVersionUID. If someone knows that this object will never be serialized should he define it or add an annotation to suppress those warnings? What would you do and why? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Okami

    Read the article

  • Application Engineering and Number of Users

    - by Kramii
    Apart from performance concerns, should web-based applications be built differently according to the number of (concurrent) users? If so, what are the main differences for (say) 4, 40, 400 and 4000 users? I'm particularly interested in how logging, error handling, design patterns etc. would be be used according to the number of concurrent users.

    Read the article

  • Should a C++ constructor do real work?

    - by Wade Williams
    I'm strugging with some advice I have in the back of my mind but for which I can't remember the reasoning. I seem to remember at some point reading some advice (can't remember the source) that C++ constructors should not do real work. Rather, they should initialize variables only. The advice when on to explain that real work should be done in some sort of init() method, to be called separately after the instance was created. The situation is I have a class that represents a hardware device. It makes logical sense to me for the constructor to call the routines that query the device in order to build up the instance variables that describe the device. In other words, once new instantiates the object, the developer receives an object which is ready to be used, no separate call to object-init() required. Is there a good reason why constructors shouldn't do real work? Obviously it could slow allocation time, but that wouldn't be any different if calling a separate method immediately after allocation. Just trying to figure out what gotchas I not currently considering that might have lead to such advice.

    Read the article

  • Is it weird or strange to make multiple WCF Calls to build a ViewModel before presenting it?

    - by Nate Bross
    Am I doing something wrong if I need code like this in a Controller? Should I be doing something differently? public ActionResult Details(int id) { var svc = new ServiceClient(); var model = new MyViewModel(); model.ObjectA = svc.GetObjectA(id); model.ObjectB = svc.GetObjectB(id); model.ObjectC = svc.GetObjectC(id); return View(model); } The reason I ask, is because I've got Linq-To-Sql on the back end and a WCF Service which exposes functionality through a set of DTOs which are NOT the Linq-To-Sql generated classes and thus do not have the parent/child properties; but in the detail view, I would like to see some of the parent/child data.

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • How do we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

    - by Sandbox
    I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectation from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay if my ViewModel 'creates' bindable user controls for my View?

    - by j0rd4n
    I have an entry-point View with a tab control. Each tab is going to have a user control embedded within it. Each embedded view inherits from the same base class and will need to be updated as a key field on the entry-point view is updated. I'm thinking the easiest way to design this page is to have the entry-point ViewModel create and expose a collection of the tabbed views so the entry-point View can just bind to the user control elements using a DataTemplate on the tab control. Is it okay for a ViewModel to instantiate and provide UI elements for its View?

    Read the article

  • Best way to map/join two autogenerated enums

    - by tomlip
    What is the best C++ (not C++11) way of joining two enums from autogenerated class similar to one presented below: namespace A { namespace B { ... class CarInfo { enum State { // basically same enums defined in different classes Running, Stopped, Broken } } class BikeInfo { enum State { // basically same enums defined in different classes Running, Stopped, Broken } } } } What is needed is unified enum State for both classes that is seen to outside world alongside with safe type conversion. The best and probably most straightforward way I came up with is to create external enum: enum State { Running, Stopped, Broken } together with conversion functions State stateEnumConv(A::B::CarInfo::State aState); State stateEnumConv(A::B::BikeInfo::State aState); A::B::CarInfo::State stateEnumConv(State aState); A::B::BikeInfo::State stateEnumConv(State aState); Direction into right approach is needed. Gosh coming from C I hate those long namespaces everywhere an I wish it could be only A::B level like in presented example. Four conversion functions seem redundant note that CarInfo::State and BikeInfo::State has same enum "members".

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for accessing Model using MVVM pattern

    - by Dzenand
    I have a database that communicates with webservices with my Model (own thread) and exposes Data Objects. My UI application consists of different Views and ViewModels and Custom Controls. I'm using ServiceProvider (IServiceProvider) to access the Model and route the events to the UI thread. Communication between the ViewModels is handeled by a Messenger. Is this way to go? I was also wondering what is the best way to strucutre the DataObjects At the moment i have the DataObjects that have a hierarchy structure but does not support INotifyProperty though the children list are of type of ObservableCollection. I have no possiblity to implement notifypropertychange on the properties. I was wondering the best way of making them MVVM friendly. Implementing a partial class and adding all the properties or commands that are necessary or wrapping all the DataObjects and keep the Model list and MVVM list in sync. All thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Where to store global variables like file paths in java ?

    - by Jules Olléon
    In my application I use some icons. Where should I store the path of the directory containing those icons ? The icons are used in different classes so it doesn't really make sense to store them in one of those classes in particular. I read that global variables are evil, but is it acceptable to use a class (eg Commons) containing only public static final fields to store this king of data ? What solution is used in professional applications ?

    Read the article

  • To trigger everytime with .click()?

    - by Dejan.S
    I tried to have a .click() on a <a> to find out it wont trigger every time I click, what it suppose to do is open a dialog. That is not the only problem I would need to pass a value to my jquery to. I just cant figure this one out. I need it to be a <a> because it's gone be in a dropdown menu. Do you got any suggestions? this is the code I use so far $(document).ready(function() { $('a').click(function() { var first = "<iframe style='width: 100%; height: 100%;' src='" + need to put value here + "'</iframe>'"; $('.iframe').html(first); $('#dialog').dialog({ bgiframe: true, modal: true, height: 600, width: 1000 }); }); }); thanks guys

    Read the article

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

    - by whatispunk
    I love auto-implemented properties in C# but lately there's been this elephant standing in my cubicle and I don't know what to do with him. If I use auto-implemented properties (hereafter "aip") then I no longer have a private backing field to use internally. This is fine because the aip has no side-effects. But what if later on I need to add some extra processing in the get or set? Now I need to create a backing-field so I can expand my getters and setters. This is fine for external code using the class, because they won't notice the difference. But now all of the internal references to the aip are going to invoke these side-effects when they access the property. Now all internal access to the once aip must be refactored to use the backing-field. So my question is, what do most of you do? Do you use auto-implemented properties or do you prefer to always use a backing-field? What do you think about properties with side-effects?

    Read the article

  • Where should global Application Settings be stored on Windows 7?

    - by Kerido
    Hi everybody, I'm working hard on making my product work seamlessly on Windows 7. The problem is that there is a small set of global (not user-specific) application settings that all users should be able to change. On previous versions I used HKLM\Software\__Company__\__Product__ for that purpose. This allowed Power Users and Administrators to modify the Registry Key and everything worked correctly. Now that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have this UAC feature, by default, even an Administrator cannot access the Key for writing without elevation. A stupid solution would, of course, mean adding requireAdministrator option into the application manifest. But this is really unprofessional since the product itself is extremely far from administration-related tasks. So I need to stay with asInvoker. Another solution could mean programmatic elevation during moments when write access to the Registry Key is required. Let alone the fact that I don't know how to implement that, it's pretty awkward also. It interferes with normal user experience so much that I would hardly consider it an option. What I know should be relatively easy to accomplish is adding write access to the specified Registry Key during installation. I created a separate question for that. This also very similar to accessing a shared file for storing the settings. My feeling is that there must be a way to accomplish what I need, in a way that is secure, straightforward and compatible with all OS'es. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Arguments to convince to switch from CVS to SVN

    - by ereOn
    Hi, The UNIX department of my company currently uses CVS as source-version control system. They use it in a very strange way: different repositories for development/testing/production code (for the same project), no one tags anything, weird directory architecture, and so on. The system has been set for ages but now, I have an opportunity to organize a meeting where I have to suggest changes. I'd like to make them change from CVS to SVN (Mercurial or Git might be even better, however I can't really recommand using a system I don't know well, and switching to SVN will already be a great step forward). I don't have much experience with CVS so I can't compare them efficiently: I just know it doesn't support atomic operations and that it is deprecated. What killer arguments would you use to convince my collegues to do the switch ? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138  | Next Page >