Search Results

Search found 30111 results on 1205 pages for 'best practices analyzer'.

Page 145/1205 | < Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >

• Repository Design Pattern Guidance

  - by thefactor

  Let's say you have an MVVM CRM application. You have a number of customer objects in memory, through a repository. What would be the appropriate place to handle tasks that aren't associated with traditional MVVM tasks from a GUI? For example, let's say every few minutes you want to check to see if their address is valid and pop up a notification if it is not. Or you want to send out an hourly e-mail update. Or you want a window to pop up to remind you to call a customer at a specific time. Where does this logic go? It's not GUI/action-oriented, and it's not logic that would be appropriate for a repository, I think.

  Read the article

• What is a raw type and why shouldn't we use it?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Questions: What are raw types in Java, and why do I often hear that they shouldn't be used in new code? What is the alternative if we can't use raw types, and how is it better? Similar questions Should Java Raw Types be Deprecated?

  Read the article

• in relation to web development, what is a taxonomy?

  - by isolatedIterator

  Can people explain what taxonomy means in terms of a web site? My current understanding it a classification of the contents in relationship to each other, but it seems like it must go beyond that simplistic definition. and yes, I have read the wikipedia entry for this.

  Read the article

• Asp.Net MVC Handle Drop Down Boxes that are not part of the Model

  - by Pino

  I have a small form which the user must fill in and consists of the following fields. Name (Text) Value (Text) Group (Group - Is a list of option pulled from a database table) Now the Model for this View looks like so, public string Name { get; set; } public string Value { get; set; } public int GroupID { get; set; } Now the view is Strongly Typed to the above model. What method would one use to populate the drop down list? Since the data is not contained within the Model (It could be contained in the Model) should we be using Temp/View data? A HTML Helper? What would be the ideal way to achieve this.

  Read the article

• Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

  - by Scott Smith

  I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

  Read the article

• PHP: Where to place return 'false' value?

  - by Mike

  Is one of the following functions better than the other, in terms of where to place the 'return false' statement? Function #1: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } return false; } Function #2: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } else { return false; } } Thanks!

  Read the article

• Database Structure for CakePHP Models

  - by Michael T. Smith

  We're building a data tracking web app using CakePHP, and I'm having some issues getting the database structure right. We have Companies that haveMany Sites. Sites haveMany DataSamples. Tags haveAndBelongToMany Sites. That is all set up fine. The problem is "ranking" the sites within tags. We need to store it in the database as an archive. I created a Rank model that is setup like this: rank ( id (int), sample_id (int), tag_id (int), site_id (int), rank (int), total_rows) ) So, the question is, how do I create the associations for tag, site and sample to rank? I originally set them as haveMany. But the returned structures don't get me where I'd like to be. It looks like: [Site] => Array ( [Sample] = Array(), [Tag] = Array() ) When I'm really looking for: [Site] => Array ( [Tag] = Array ( [Sample] => Array ( [Rank] => Array ( ...data... ) ) ) ) I think that I may not be structuring the database properly; so if I need to update please let me know. Otherwise, how do I write a find query that gets me where I need to be? Thanks! Thoughts? Need more details? Just ask!

  Read the article

• Is "for(;;)" faster than "while (TRUE)"? If not, why do people use it?

  - by Chris Cooper

  for (;;) { //Something to be done repeatedly } I have seen this sort of thing used a lot, but I think it is rather strange... Wouldn't it be much clearer to say while (TRUE), or something along those lines? I'm guessing that (as is the reason for many-a-programmer to resort to cryptic code) this is a tiny margin faster? Why, and is it REALLY worth it? If so, why not just define it this way: #DEFINE while(TRUE) for(;;)

  Read the article

• How to check for undefined or null variable in javascript

  - by Thomas Wanner

  We are frequently using the following code pattern in our javascript code if(typeof(some_variable) != 'undefined' && some_variable != null) { // do something with some_variable } and I'm wondering whether there is a less verbose way of checking that has the same effect. According to some forums and literature saying simply if(some_variable) { // do something with some_variable } should have the same effect. Unfortunately, Firebug evaluates such a statement as error on runtime when some_variable is undefined, whereas the first one is just fine for him. Is this only an (unwanted) behavior of Firebug or is there really some difference between those two ways ?

  Read the article

• Prims vs Polys: what are the pros and cons of each?

  - by Richard Inglis

  I've noticed that most 3d gaming/rendering environments represent solids as a mesh of (usually triangular) 3d polygons. However some examples, such as Second Life, or PovRay use solids built from a set of 3d primitives (cube, sphere, cone, torus etc) on which various operations can be performed to create more complex shapes. So my question is: why choose one method over the other for representing 3d data? I can see there might be benefits for complex ray-tracing operations to be able to describe a surface as a single mathematical function (like PovRay does), but SL surely isn't attempting anything so ambitious with their rendering engine. Equally, I can imagine it might be more bandwidth-efficient to serve descriptions of generalised solids instead of arbitrary meshes, but is it really worth the downside that SL suffers from (ie modelling stuff is really hard, and usually the results are ugly) - was this just a bad decision made early in SL's development that they're now stuck with? Or is it an artefact of what's easiest to implement in OpenGL?

  Read the article

• How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

  - by Support - multilanguage SO

  For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

  Read the article

• Ideal way to set global uncaught exception Handler in Android

  - by Samuh

  I want to set a global uncaught exception handler for all the threads in my Android application. So, in my Application subclass I set an implementation of Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler as default handler for uncaught exceptions. Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler( new DefaultExceptionHandler(this)); In my implementation, I am trying to display an AlertDialog displaying appropriate exception message. However, this doesn't seem to work. Whenever, an exception is thrown for any thread which goes un-handled, I get the stock, OS-default dialog (Sorry!-Application-has-stopped-unexpectedly dialog). What is the correct and ideal way to set a default handler for uncaught exceptions? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Being pressured to GOTO the dark-side

  - by Dan McG

  We have a situation at work where developers working on a legacy (core) system are being pressured into using GOTO statements when adding new features into existing code that is already infected with spagetti code. Now, I understand there may be arguments for using 'just one little GOTO' instead of spending the time on refactoring to a more maintainable solution. The issue is, this isolated 'just one little GOTO' isn't so isolated. At least once every week or so there is a new 'one little GOTO' to add. This codebase is already a horror to work with due to code dating back to or before 1984 being riddled with GOTOs that would make many Pastafarians believe it was inspired by the Flying Spagetti Monster itself. Unfortunately the language this is written in doesn't have any ready made refactoring tools, so it makes it harder to push the 'Refactor to increase productivity later' because short-term wins are the only wins paid attention to here... Has anyone else experienced this issue whereby everybody agrees that we cannot be adding new GOTOs to jump 2000 lines to a random section, but continually have Anaylsts insist on doing it just this one time and having management approve it? tldr; How can one go about addressing the issue of developers being pressured (forced) to continually add GOTO statements (by add, I mean add to jump to random sections many lines away) because it 'gets that feature in quicker'? I'm beginning to fear we may loses valuable developers to the raptors over this...

  Read the article

• Simple network gaming, client-server architecture planning.

  - by michal

  Hi, I'm coding simple game which I plan to make multiplayer (over the network) as my university project. I'm considering two scenarios for client-server communication: The physics (they're trivial! I should call it "collision tests" in fact :) ) are processed on server machine only. Therefore the communication looks like Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: here you go, Client1 position is now [X,Y] Client2->Server: Pressed "fire" Server->Clients: Client1 hit Client2, make Client2 disappear! server receives the event and broadcasts it to all the other clients. Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: Client1 pressed "UP", recalculate his position!! [Client1 receives this one as well!] Which one is better? Or maybe none of them? :)

  Read the article

• How to refactor this Ruby on Rails code?

  - by yuval

  I want to fetch posts based on their status, so I have this code inside my PostsController index action. It seems to be cluttering the index action, though, and I'm not sure it belongs here. How could I make it more concise and where would I move it in my application so it doesn't clutter up my index action (if that is the correct thing to do)? if params[:status].empty? status = 'active' else status = ['active', 'deleted', 'commented'].include?(params[:status]) ? params[:status] : 'active' end case status when 'active' #active posts are not marked as deleted and have no comments is_deleted = false comments_count_sign = "=" when 'deleted' #deleted posts are marked as deleted and have no comments is_deleted = true comments_count_sign = "=" when 'commented' #commented posts are not marked as deleted and do have comments is_deleted = false comments_count_sign = ">" end @posts = Post.find(:all, :conditions => ["is_deleted = ? and comments_count_sign #{comments_count_sign} 0", is_deleted])

  Read the article

• Why are there magic attributes exposed in the Servlet spec?

  - by Brabster

  It's always seemed a little at odds with the principles of Java that the Java Servlet Spec (2.5 version here) includes a set of magic attributes containing info about included resources, namely: javax.servlet.include.request_uri javax.servlet.include.context_path javax.servlet.include.servlet_path javax.servlet.include.path_info javax.servlet.include.query_string It's not even specifically pointed out in the API documentation, only in the spec where it is a must for correct implementation. This approach feels very wrong, an exposed implementation detail that clients will use and depend on. Why is this information exposed in this way?

  Read the article

• Same project...multiple apps?

  - by greypoint

  We have a an iPhone app project that we wish to deploy multiple times under different client names. The individual apps will be very similar but will have different resources (icon, images etc) and config settings stored in plists (server names, options etc). What is the preferred means to manage this in Xcode? Obviously we really don't want different XCode projects for each App deployment since it's 90% shared code.

  Read the article

• Me As Child Type In General Function

  - by Steven

  I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

  Read the article

• which version of the code below is right?

  - by TheVillageIdiot

  Hi I found this function in a utilities code file: Version 1: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { bool result = true; try { long tmp = long.Parse(strLong); } catch (Exception ex) { result = false; } return result; } I want to replace this (and validators for other types) with following: Version 2: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { long l; return long.TryParse(strLong, out l); } which version is better and why?

  Read the article

• is the below a good approach to returning a safe list enumerator?

  - by user200295

  public class Foo{ public string Prop1 {get;set;} public string Prop2 {get;set;} public Foo(Foo source) { this.Prop1 = source.Prop1; this.Prop2 = source.Prop2; } } public class Main { private List<Foo> items = new List<Foo>(); public IEnumerable<Foo> GetItems() { foreach (Foo foo in items) { yield return new Foo(foo); } } }

  Read the article

• Error handling inside or out of class?

  - by Rin

  Usually I do all what I can inside a class, in every method (try and catch). Am I doing it wrong? Recently I heard better way is handle error in program body... What is good habit?

  Read the article

• What configuration of JBoss should we used - web, standard, default?

  - by Vladimir Bezugliy

  We develop web application and we are going to deploy it on JBoss. Now we use JSF, Facelets, Webflow, JMX, Spring. We are going to use JMS(ActiveMQ). Maybe in the future we will use EJB3. But for near future we will not use it. What configuration of JBoss would be better to use - web, standard, default? And why?

  Read the article

• How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

  - by Malax

  Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

  Read the article

• Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

  - by Caspin

  Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

  Read the article

• Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  - by Itay Moav

  Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152  | Next Page >