Search Results

Search found 13692 results on 548 pages for 'bad practices'.

Page 138/548 | < Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >

  • On Mac OS X, do you use the shipped python or your own?

    - by The MYYN
    On Tiger, I used a custom python installation to evaluate newer versions and I did not have any problems with that*. Now Snow Leopard is a little more up-to-date and by default ships with $ ls /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/ 2.3 2.5 2.6 @Current What could be considered best practice? Using the python shipped with Mac OS X or a custom compiled version in, say $HOME. Are there any advantages/disadvantages using the one option over the other? My setup was fairly simple so far and looked like this: Custom compiled Python in $HOME and a $PATH that would look into $HOME/bin first, and subsequently would use my private Python version. Also $PYTHONPATH pointed to this local installation. This way, I did not need to sudo–install packages - virtualenv took care of the rest.

    Read the article

  • Are ASCII diagrams worth my time?

    - by Jesse Stimpson
    Are ASCII diagrams within source code worth the time they take to create? I could create a bitmap diagram much faster, but images are much more difficult to in line in a source file (until VS2010). For the record, I'm not talking about decorative ASCII art. Here's an example of a diagram I recently created for my code that I probably could have constructed in half the time in MS Paint. Scenario A: v (U)_________________(N)_______<--(P) Legend: ' / | J = ... ' / | P = ... ' /d | U = ... ' / | v = ... ' / | d = ... '/ | N = ... (J) | | | |___________________|

    Read the article

  • How to provide global functionality in multi-user database app

    - by Mike B
    I have been building a multi-user database application (in C#/WPF 4.0) that manages tasks for all employees of a company. I now need to add some functionality such as sending an email reminder to someone when a critical task is due. How should this be done? Obviously I don’t want every instance of the program to be performing this function (Heh each user would get 10+ emails). Should I add the capability to the application as a "Mode" and then run a copy on the database server in this mode or would it be better to create a new app altogether to perform "Global" type tasks? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • help me to choose between two designs

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    Read the article

  • boost.asio's socket's recieve/send functions are bad?

    - by the_drow
    Data may be read from or written to a connected TCP socket using the receive(), async_receive(), send() or async_send() member functions. However, as these could result in short writes or reads, an application will typically use the following operations instead: read(), async_read(), write() and async_write(). I don't really understand that remark as read(), async_read(), write() and async_write() can also end up in short writes or reads, right? Why are those functions not the same? Should I use them at all? Can someone clarify that remark for me?

    Read the article

  • Where do I put the Current user query so as to not repeat per controller?

    - by Kevin
    I have a standard query that gets the current user object: @user = User.find_by_email(session[:email]) but I'm putting it as the first line in every single controller action which is obviously not the best way to do this. What is the best way to refactor this? Do I put this as a method in the Application controller (and if so, can you just show me a quick example)? Do I put the entire @user object into the session (has about 50 columns and some sensitive ones like is_admin)? Or is there another way to remove this kind of redundancy?

    Read the article

  • Subclassing and adding data members

    - by Marius
    I have an hierarchy of classes that looks like the following: class Critical { public: Critical(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } virtual ~Critical() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } protected: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor : public Critical { public: CriticalFlavor(int a, int b, int flavor) : Critical(a, b), m_flavor(flavor) { } virtual ~CriticalFlavor() { } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } protected: int m_flavor; }; class CriticalTwist : public Critical { public: CriticalTwist(int a, int b, int twist) : Critical(a, b), m_twist(twist) { } virtual ~CriticalTwist() { } int GetTwist() { return m_twist; } void SetTwist(int twist) { m_twist = twist; } protected: int m_twist; }; The above does not seem right to me in terms of the design and what bothers me the most is the fact that the addition of member variables seems to drive the interface of these classes (the real code that does the above is a little more complex but still embracing the same pattern). That will proliferate when in need for another "Critical" class that just adds some other property. Does this feel right to you? How could I refactor such code? An idea would be to have just a set of interfaces and use composition when it comes to the base object like the following: class Critical { public: virtual int GetA() = 0; virtual int GetB() = 0; virtual void SetA(int a) = 0; virtual void SetB(int b) = 0; }; class CriticalImpl { public: CriticalImpl(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } ~CriticalImpl() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } private: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor { public: virtual int GetFlavor() = 0; virtual void SetFlavor(int flavor) = 0; }; class CriticalFlavorImpl : public Critical, public CriticalFlavor { public: CriticalFlavorImpl(int a, int b, int flavor) : m_flavor(flavor), m_critical(new CriticalImpl(a, b)) { } ~CriticalFlavorImpl() { delete m_critical; } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } int GetA() { return m_critical-GetA(); } int GetB() { return m_critical-GetB(); } void SetA(int a) { m_critical-SetA(a); } void SetB(int b) { m_critical-SetB(b); } private: int m_flavor; CriticalImpl* m_critical; };

    Read the article

  • What the reasons for/against returning 0 from main in ISO C++?

    - by Maulrus
    I know that the C++ standard says that return 0 is inserted at the end of main() if no return statement is given; however, I often see recently-written, standard-conforming C++ code that explicitly returns 0 at the end of main(). For what reasons would somebody want to explicitly return 0 if it's automatically done by the compiler?

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous SQL Operations

    - by Paul Hatcherian
    I've got a problem I'm not sure how best to solve. I have an application which updates a database in response to ad hoc requests. One request in particular is quite common. The request is an update that by itself is quite simple, but has some complex preconditions. For this request the business layer first requests a set of data from the data layer. The business logic layer evaluated the data from the database and parameters from the request, from this the action to be performed is determined, and the request's response message(s) are created. The business layer now executes the actual update command that is the purpose of the request. This last step is the problem, this command is dependent on the state of the database, which might have changed since the business logic ran. Locking down the data read in this operation across several round-trips to the database doesn't seem like a good idea either. Is there a 'best-practice' way to accomplish something like this? Thanks!

    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

  • What's a unit test? [closed]

    - by Tyler
    Possible Duplicates: What is unit testing and how do you do it? What is unit testing? I recognize that to 95% of you, this is a very WTF question. So. What's a unit test? I understand that essentially you're attempting to isolate atomic functionality but how do you test for that? When is it necessary? When is it ridiculous? Can you give an example? (Preferably in C? I mostly hear about it from Java devs on this site so maybe this is specific to Object Oriented languages? I really don't know.) I know many programmers swear by unit testing religiously. What's it all about? EDIT: Also, what's the ratio of time you typically spend writing unit tests to time spent writing new code?

    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

  • package private static member class vs. package private class

    - by Helper Method
    I was writing two implementations of a linked list for an assignment, a doubly linked list and a circular doubly linked list. Now as the class representing a Link within the linked list is the same in both implementations, I want to use it in both. Now I wonder which approach would be better: Implement the Link class as a package private static member class in the first implementation and then use this class in the second implementation or make the Link class a package private class.

    Read the article

  • Are upper bounds of indexed ranges always assumed to be exclusive?

    - by polygenelubricants
    So in Java, whenever an indexed range is given, the upper bound is almost always exclusive. From java.lang.String: substring(int beginIndex, int endIndex) Returns a new string that is a substring of this string. The substring begins at the specified beginIndex and extends to the character at index endIndex - 1 From java.util.Arrays: copyOfRange(T[] original, int from, int to) from - the initial index of the range to be copied, inclusive to - the final index of the range to be copied, exclusive. From java.util.BitSet: set(int fromIndex, int toIndex) fromIndex - index of the first bit to be set. toIndex - index after the last bit to be set. As you can see, it does look like Java tries to make it a consistent convention that upper bounds are exclusive. My questions are: Is this the official authoritative recommendation? Are there notable violations that we should be wary of? Is there a name for this system? (ala "0-based" vs "1-based")

    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

  • Why is Visual Basic used?

    - by Arrieta
    I don't mean to start a holy war here, but I cannot fathom why would anybody use Visual Basic for a new project. Can you explain me why is it used? What new applications (which a lay person may be familiar with) have been developed in it? Why is it chosen over other languages? Thanks.

    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

  • Python-based password tracker (or dictionary)

    - by Arrieta
    Hello: Where we work we need to remember about 10 long passwords which need to change every so often. I would like to create a utility which can potentially save these passwords in an encrypted file so that we can keep track of them. I can think of some sort of dictionary passwd = {'host1':'pass1', 'host2':'pass2'}, etc, but I don't know what to do about encryption (absolutely zero experience in the topic). So, my question is really two questions: Is there a Linux-based utility which lets you do that? If you were to program it in Python, how would you go about it? A perk of approach two, would be for the software to update the ssh public keys after the password has been changed (you know the pain of updating ~15 tokens once you change your password). As it can be expected, I have zero control over the actual network configuration and the management of scp keys. I can only hope to provide a simple utility to me an my very few coworkers so that, if we need to, we can retrieve a password on demand. Cheers.

    Read the article

  • Where to put a piece of code in Ruby on Rails?

    - by yuval
    I have a post controller that has many comments. The post model has a field called has_comments which is a boolean (so I can quickly select from the database only posts that have comments). To create a new comment for a post, I use the create action of my comments controller. After I create the comment I need to update my post's has_comments field and set it to true. I can update this field from the create action of my comments controller, but that doesn't seem right - I feel that I should really be using the post's update action, but I'm not sure if it's right to call it (via send?) from the create action of the comments controller. Where should the code for updating the post be? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Preprocessor #define vs. function pointer - best practice?

    - by Dustin
    I recently started a small personal project (RGB value to BGR value conversion program) in C, and I realised that a function that converts from RGB to BGR can not only perform the conversion but also the inversion. Obviously that means I don't really need two functions rgb2bgr and bgr2rgb. However, does it matter whether I use a function pointer instead of a macro? For example: int rgb2bgr (const int rgb); /* * Should I do this because it allows the compiler to issue * appropriate error messages using the proper function name, * not to mention possible debugging benefits? */ int (*bgr2rgb) (const int bgr) = rgb2bgr; /* * Or should I do this since it is merely a convenience * and they're really the same function anyway? */ #define bgr2rgb(bgr) (rgb2bgr (bgr)) I'm not necessarily looking for a change in execution efficiency as it's more of a subjective question out of curiosity. I am well aware of the fact that type safety is neither lost nor gained using either method. Would the function pointer merely be a convenience or are there more practical benefits to be gained of which I am unaware?

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to throw NotImplemented exception in virtual methods?

    - by Axarydax
    I have a base class for some plugin-style stuff, and there are some methods that are absolutely required to be implemented. I currently declare those in the base class as virtual, for example public virtual void Save { throw new NotImplementedException(); } and in the descendand I have a public override void Save() { //do stuff } Is it a good practice to throw a NotImplementedException there? The descendand classes could for example be the modules for handling different file formats. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >