Search Results

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

Page 146/348 | < Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >

• View artifacts leaking into the model of MVC

  - by Jono

  In an ASP.NET MVC application (which has very little chance of having its view technology ported to something non-HTML, but whose functional requirements evolve weekly,) how much HTML should ideally be allowed to be directly represented in the Model? I might come across as a design bigot for this, but I regard it as bad practice to allow any view constructs to "leak" into the model in an MVC application (and vice versa). For example, a Model that represents an item you're about to purchase should know nothing about the HTML check box that says "add giftwrap/message", nor should it know about any HTML drop down lists for payment card types. Conversely the View shouldn't be doing work like figuring out button text by translating keys into values (by looking in resource files.)

  Read the article

• How do you handle passwords or credentials for standalone applications?

  - by Abel Morelos

  Let's say that you have a standalone application (a Java application in my case) and that this application has a configuration file (a XML file in my case) where you store the credentials (user and password) for a bunch of databases you need to connect. Everything works great, but now you discover (or your are given a new requirement like me) that you have to put this application in a different server and that you can't have these credentials in the configuration files because of security and/or compliance considerations. I'm considering to use data sources hosted in the application server (a WAS server), but I think this could have poor performance and maybe it's not the best approach since I'm connecting from a standalone application. I was also considering to use some sort of encryption, but I would like to keep things as simple as possible. How would you handle this case? Where would you put these credentials or protect them from being compromised? Or how would you connect to your databases in this scenario?

  Read the article

• Should my internal API classes be all in one package?

  - by Chris

  I'm hard at work packaging up an API for public consumption. As such I'm trying to limit the methods that are exposed to only those that I wish to be public and supportable. Underneath this of course there are a multitude of limited access methods. The trouble is that I have a lot of internal code that needs to access these restricted methods without making those methods public. This creates two issues: I can't create interfaces to communicate between classes as this would make these my internal methods public. I can't access protected or default methods unless I put the majority of my internal classes in the same package. So, I have around 70 or 80 internal classes in cleanly segregated packages BUT with overly permissive access modifiers. Would you say that a single package is the lesser of two evils or is there a better way to be able to mask my internal methods whilst keeping more granular packages? I'd be interested to find out the best practice here. I'm already aware of This

  Read the article

• Invoicing vs Quoting or Estimating

  - by FreshCode

  If invoices can be voided, should they be used as quotations? I have an Invoices tables that is created from inventory associated with a Job or Order. I could have a Quotes table as a halfway-house between inventory and invoices, but it feels like I would have duplicate data structures and logic just to handle an "Is this a quote?" bit. From a business perspective, quotes are different from invoices: a quote is sent prior to an undertaking and an invoice is sent once it is complete and payment is due, but how to represent this in my repository and model. What is an elegant way to store and manage quotes & invoices in a database? Edit: indicated Job === Order for this particular instance.

  Read the article

• call my web services from other app with javascript?

  - by Dejan.S

  Hi. I got .asmx a web service on my app. I need to call a method from an other app to get statistics from my app. I need it to return XML. the call to the webmethod is done with javascript soap. There is a default hellow world webmethod and calling that work but it seem that when i try to call a method where i need to pass parameters and it need to execute code it wont work and just return my error message. any ideas on what can be wrong. am I using the wrong web method?

  Read the article

• File descriptor limits and default stack sizes

  - by Charles

  Where I work we build and distribute a library and a couple complex programs built on that library. All code is written in C and is available on most 'standard' systems like Windows, Linux, Aix, Solaris, Darwin. I started in the QA department and while running tests recently I have been reminded several times that I need to remember to set the file descriptor limits and default stack sizes higher or bad things will happen. This is particularly the case with Solaris and now Darwin. Now this is very strange to me because I am a believer in 0 required environment fiddling to make a product work. So I am wondering if there are times where this sort of requirement is a necessary evil, or if we are doing something wrong. Edit: Great comments that describe the problem and a little background. However I do not believe I worded the question well enough. Currently, we require customers, and hence, us the testers, to set these limits before running our code. We do not do this programatically. And this is not a situation where they MIGHT run out, under normal load our programs WILL run out and seg fault. So rewording the question, is requiring the customer to change these ulimit values to run our software to be expected on some platforms, ie, Solaris, Aix, or are we as a company making it to difficult for these users to get going? Bounty: I added a bounty to hopefully get a little more information on what other companies are doing to manage these limits. Can you set these pragmatically? Should we? Should our programs even be hitting these limits or could this be a sign that things might be a bit messy under the covers? That is really what I want to know, as a perfectionist a seemingly dirty program really bugs me.

  Read the article

• What's the best way to unit test code that generates random output?

  - by Flynn1179

  Specifically, I've got a method picks n items from a list in such a way that a% of them meet one criterion, and b% meet a second, and so on. A simplified example would be to pick 5 items where 50% have a given property with the value 'true', and 50% 'false'; 50% of the time the method would return 2 true/3 false, and the other 50%, 3 true/2 false. Statistically speaking, this means that over 100 runs, I should get about 250 true/250 false, but because of the randomness, 240/260 is entirely possible. What's the best way to unit test this? I'm assuming that even though technically 300/200 is possible, it should probably fail the test if this happens. Is there a generally accepted tolerance for cases like this, and if so, how do you determine what that is?

  Read the article

• Visitor Pattern can be replaced with Callback functions?

  - by getit

  Is there any significant benefit to using either technique? In case there are variations, the Visitor Pattern I mean is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern And below is an example of using a delegate to achieve the same effect (at least I think it is the same) Say there is a collection of nested elements: Schools contain Departments which contain Students Instead of using the Visitor pattern to perform something on each collection item, why not use a simple callback (Action delegate in C#) Say something like this class Department { List Students; } class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student> actionDelegate) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu); } } } } School A = new School(); ...//populate collections A.Visit((student)=> { ...Do Something with student... }); *EDIT Example with delegate accepting multiple params Say I wanted to pass both the student and department, I could modify the Action definition like so: Action class School { List Departments; VisitStudents(Action<Student, Department> actionDelegate, Action<Department> d2) { foreach(var dep in this.Departments) { d2(dep); //This performs a different process. //Using Visitor pattern would avoid having to keep adding new delegates. //This looks like the main benefit so far foreach(var stu in dep.Students) { actionDelegate(stu, dep); } } } }

  Read the article

• multiple classes with same methods - best pattern

  - by Tony

  I have a few classes in my current project where validation of Email/Website addresses is necessary. The methods to do that are all the same. I wondered what's the best way to implement this, so I don't need to have these methods copy pasted everywhere? The classes themselves are not necessarily related, they only have those validation methods in common.

  Read the article

• Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

  Read the article

• C# Property Access vs Interface Implementation

  - by ehdv

  I'm writing a class to represent a Pivot Collection, the root object recognized by Pivot. A Collection has several attributes, a list of facet categories (each represented by a FacetCategory object) and a list of items (each represented by a PivotItem object). Therefore, an extremely simplified Collection reads: public class Collection { private List<FacetCategory> categories; private List<PivotItem> items; // other attributes } What I'm unsure of is how to properly grant access to those two lists. Because declaration order of both facet categories and items is visible to the user, I can't use sets, but the class also shouldn't allow duplicate categories or items. Furthermore, I'd like to make the Collection object as easy to use as possible. So my choices are: Have Collection implement IList<PivotItem> and have accessor methods for FacetCategory: In this case, one would add an item to Collection foo by writing foo.Add(bar). This works, but since a Collection is equally both kinds of list making it only pass as a list for one type (category or item) seems like a subpar solution. Create nested wrapper classes for List (CategoryList and ItemList). This has the advantage of making a consistent interface but the downside is that these properties would no longer be able to serve as lists (because I need to override the non-virtual Add method I have to implement IList rather than subclass List. Implicit casting wouldn't work because that would return the Add method to its normal behavior. Also, for reasons I can't figure out, IList is missing an AddRange method... public class Collection { private class CategoryList: IList<FacetCategory> { // ... } private readonly CategoryList categories = new CategoryList(); private readonly ItemList items = new ItemList(); public CategoryList FacetCategories { get { return categories; } set { categories.Clear(); categories.AddRange(value); } } public ItemList Items { get { return items; } set { items.Clear(); items.AddRange(value); } } } Finally, the third option is to combine options one and two, so that Collection implements IList<PivotItem> and has a property FacetCategories. Question: Which of these three is most appropriate, and why?

  Read the article

• C# event or delegate or other solution?

  - by user295734

  Looking for some help or programmng ideas or mayeb there is some pattern that would help. Have an application that needs to fire alot of events sequentially, it could up to 100 or more unique events, it will be dynamic depeneding on the situation. Trying to find the best practice for doing this. My main idea right now is to create a list of objects iterate thru them, and fire each event. This seems wrong, or bad practice. Or maybe have one object and pass a list or params into one event? Or am I missing some feature in .NET that i could be using or implementing?

  Read the article

• HTML Submit button vs AJAX based Post (ASP.NET MVC)

  - by Graham

  I'm after some design advice. I'm working on an application with a fellow developer. I'm from the Webforms world and he's done a lot with jQuery and AJAX stuff. We're collaborating on a new ASP.MVC 1.0 app. He's done some pretty amazing stuff that I'm just getting my head around, and used some 3rd party tools etc. for datagrids etc. but... He rarely uses Submit buttons whereas I use them most of the time. He uses a button but then attaches Javascript to it that calls an MVC action which returns a JSON object. He then parses the object to update the datagrid. I'm not sure how he deals with server-side validation - I think he adds a message property to the JSON object. A sample scenario would be to "Save" a new record that then gets added to the gridview. The user doesn't see a postback as such, so he uses jQuery to disable the UI whilst the controller action is running. TBH, it looks pretty cool. However, the way I'd do it would be to use a Submit button to postback, let the ModelBinder populate a typed model class, parse that in my controller Action method, update the model (and apply any validation against the model), update it with the new record, then send it back to be rendered by the View. Unlike him, I don't return a JSON object, I let the View (and datagrid) bind to the new model data. Both solutions "work" but we're obviously taking the application down different paths so one of us has to re-work our code... and we don't mind whose has to be done. What I'd prefer though is that we adopt the "industry-standard" way of doing this. I'm unsure as to whether my WebForms background is influencing the fact that his way just "doesn't feel right", in that a "submit" is meant to submit data to the server. Any advice at all please - many thanks.

  Read the article

• P/Invoke or C++/CLI for wrapping a C library

  - by Ian G

  Have a moderate size (40-odd function) C API that needs to be called from a C# project. The functions logically break up to form a few classes that will be API presented to the rest of the project. Are there any objective reasons to prefer P/Invoke or C++/CLI for the interoperability underneath that API, in terms of robustness, maintainability, deployment, ...? The issues I could think of that might be, but aren't problematic are: C++/CLI will require an separate assembly, the P/Invoke classes can be in the main assembly. (We've already got multiple assemblies and there'll be the C dlls anyway so not a major issue). Performance doesn't seem differ noticeable between the two methods. Issues that I'm not sure about are: My feeling is C++/CLI will be easier to debug if there's inter-op problem, is this true? Language familiarity enough people know C# and C++ but knowledge of details of C++/CLI are rarer here. Anything else?

  Read the article

• How could it happen that version control software emerged so lately?

  - by sharptooth

  According to Wikipedia (the table at the page bottom), the earliest known version control systems were CVS and TeamWare both known from year 1990. How can it be? Software development has been here from at most 1960's and I honestly can't imagine working with codebase without version control. How could it happen that version control software emerged so lately compared to software development?

  Read the article

• Immutable classes in C++

  - by ereOn

  Hi, In one of my projects, I have some classes that represent entities that cannot change once created, aka. immutable classes. Example : A class RSAKey that represent a RSA key which only has const methods. There is no point changing the existing instance: if you need another one, you just create one. My objects sometimes are heavy and I enforced the use of smart pointers to avoid copy. So far, I have the following pattern for my classes: class RSAKey : public boost::noncopyable, public boost::enable_shared_from_this<RSAKey> { public: /** * \brief Some factory. * \param member A member value. * \return An instance. */ static boost::shared_ptr<const RSAKey> createFromMember(int member); /** * \brief Get a member. * \return The member. */ int getMember() const; private: /** * \brief Constructor. * \param member A member. */ RSAKey(int member); /** * \brief Member. */ const int m_member; }; So you can only get a pointer (well, a smart pointer) to a const RSAKey. To me, it makes sense, because having a non-const reference to the instance is useless (it only has const methods). Do you guys see any issue regarding this pattern ? Are immutable classes something common in C++ or did I just created a monster ? Thank you for your advices !

  Read the article

• Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

  - by John Gietzen

  Here is the scenario: I have an object called a Transaction that needs to make sure that only one entity has permission to edit it at any given time. In order to facilitate a long-lived lock, I have the class generating a token object that can be used to make the edits. You would use it like this: var transaction = new Transaction(); using (var tlock = transaction.Lock()) { transaction.Update(data, tlock); } Now, I want the TransactionLock class to implement IDisposable so that its usage can be clear. But, I don't have any unmanaged resources to dispose. however, the TransctionLock object itself is a sort of "unmanaged resource" in the sense that the CLR doesn't know how to properly finalize it. All of this would be fine and dandy, I would just use IDisposable and be done with it. However, my issue comes when I try to do this in the finalizer: ~TransactionLock() { this.Dispose(false); } I want the finalizer to release the transaction from the lock, if possible. How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized? Is there a better pattern I should be using? The Transaction class looks something like this: public sealed class Transaction { private readonly object lockMutex = new object(); private TransactionLock currentLock; public TransactionLock Lock() { lock (this.lockMutex) { if (this.currentLock != null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); this.currentLock = new TransactionLock(this); return this.currentLock; } } public void Update(object data, TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); // ... } } internal void ValidateLock(TransactionLock tlock) { if (this.currentLock == null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); if (this.currentLock != tlock) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); } internal void Unlock(TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); this.currentLock = null; } } }

  Read the article

• Is it better to reset password or send lost password back?

  - by sss

  Is it better when a user forgets their password to have them reset their password or to just send the lost password back to them?

  Read the article

• Handling Dialogs in WPF with MVVM

  - by Ray Booysen

  In the MVVM pattern for WPF, handling dialogs is one of the more complex operations. As your view model does not know anything about the view, dialog communication can be interesting. I can expose an ICommand that when the view invokes it, a dialog can appear. Does anyone know of a good way to handle results from dialogs? I am speaking about windows dialogs such as MessageBox. One of the ways we did this was have an event on the viewmodel that the view would subscribe to when a dialog was required. public event EventHandler<MyDeleteArgs> RequiresDeleteDialog; This is OK, but it means that the view requires code which is something I would like to stay away from.

  Read the article

• Allow for modular development while still running in same JVM?

  - by Marcus

  Our current app runs in a single JVM. We are now splitting up the app into separate logical services where each service runs in its own JVM. The split is being done to allow a single service to be modified and deployed without impacting the entire system. This reduces the need to QA the entire system - just need to QA the interaction with the service being changed. For inter service communication we use a combination of REST, an MQ system bus, and database views. What I don't like about this: REST means we have to marshal data to/from XML DB views couple the systems together which defeats the whole concept of separate services MQ / system bus is added complexity There is inevitably some code duplication between services You have set up n JBoss server configurations, we have to do n number of deployments, n number of set up scripts, etc, etc. Is there a better way to structure an internal application to allow modular development and deployment while allowing the app to run in a single JVM (and achieving the associated benefits)?

  Read the article

• Using GET instead of POST to delete data behind authenticated pages

  - by Matt Spradley

  I know you should use POST whenever data will be modified on a public website. There are several reasons including the fact that search engines will follow all the links and modify the data. My question is do you think it is OK to use GET behind authenticated pages in something like an admin interface? One example would be a list of products with a delete link on each row. Since the only way to get to the page is if you are logged in, is there any harm in just using a link with the product ID in the query string?

  Read the article

• [Delphi] How would you refactor this code?

  - by Al C

  This hypothetical example illustrates several problems I can't seem to get past, even though I keep trying!! ... Suppose the original code is a long event handler, coded in the UI, triggered when a user clicks a cell in a grid. Expressed as pseudocode it's: if Condition1=true then begin //loop through every cell in row, //if aCell/headerCellValue>1 then //color aCell red end else if Condition2=true then begin //do some other calculation adding cell and headerCell values, and //if some other product>2 then //color the whole row green end else show an error message I look at this and say "Ah, refactor to the strategy pattern! The code will be easier to understand, easier to debug, and easier to later extend!" I get that. And I can easily break the code into multiple procedures. The problem is ultimately scope related. Assume the pseudocode makes extensive use of grid properties, values displayed in cells, maybe even built-in grid methods. How do you move all that to another unit, without referencing the grid component in the UI--which would break all the "rules" about loose coupling that make OOP valuable? ... I'm really looking forward to responses. Thanks, as always -- Al C.

  Read the article

• How to write a good PHP database insert using an associative array

  - by Tom

  In PHP, I want to insert into a database using data contained in a associative array of field/value pairs. Example: $_fields = array('field1'=>'value1','field2'=>'value2','field3'=>'value3'); The resulting SQL insert should look as follows: INSERT INTO table (field1,field2,field3) VALUES ('value1','value2','value3'); I have come up with the following PHP one-liner: mysql_query("INSERT INTO table (".implode(',',array_keys($_fields)).") VALUES (".implode(',',array_values($_fields)).")"); It separates the keys and values of the the associative array and implodes to generate a comma-separated string . The problem is that it does not escape or quote the values that were inserted into the database. To illustrate the danger, Imagine if $_fields contained the following: $_fields = array('field1'=>"naustyvalue); drop table members; --"); The following SQL would be generated: INSERT INTO table (field1) VALUES (naustyvalue); drop table members; --; Luckily, multiple queries are not supported, nevertheless quoting and escaping are essential to prevent SQL injection vulnerabilities. How do you write your PHP Mysql Inserts? Note: PDO or mysqli prepared queries aren't currently an option for me because the codebase already uses mysql extensively - a change is planned but it'd take alot of resources to convert?

  Read the article

• MVC (model-view-controller) - can it be explained in simple terms?

  - by DVK

  I need to explain to a not-very-technical manager the MVC (model-view-controller) concept and ran into trouble. The problem is that the explanation needs to be on a "your grandma will get it" level - e.g. even the fairly straightforward explanation offered on MVC Wiki page didn't work, at least with my commentary. Does anyone have a reference to a good MVC explanation in simple terms? It would ideally be done with non-techie metaphor examples (e.g. similar to "Decorator pattern is like glasses") - one reason I failed was that all MVC examples I could come up with were development related. I once saw a list of pattern explanations but to the best of my memory MVC was not on it. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Singular method name for single object argument, plural for a list?

  - by nasufara

  I'm having a problem with naming a method for a database application. In my Database instance, I have a method that can remove an Agreement object from the database. However, I want to be able to remove multiple Agreements at once, to be able to use transactions. The problem is that I also have an overload to remove a single Agreement object. Essentially, my structure is like this: public class Database { // ... public void RemoveAgreement(Agreement a) { // ... } public void RemoveAgreement(IEnumerable<Agreement> agreements) { // ... } } But this can be confusing, as the overload with the list of Agreements has a singular name, despite being inherently plural. My question is, how should I structure this? Should I have two overloads with the name RemoveAgreement(), or RemoveAgreements()? Or should I use two separate methods, instead of overloads? Thanks.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >