Search Results

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

Page 150/348 | < Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >

  • Should my validator have access to my entire model?

    - by wb
    As the title states I'm wondering if it's a good idea for my validation class to have access to all properties from my model. Ideally, I would like to do that because some fields require 10+ other fields to verify whether it is valid or not. I could but would rather not have functions with 10+ parameters. Or would that make the model and validator too coupled with one another? Here is a little example of what I mean. This code however does not work because it give an infinite loop! Class User Private m_UserID Private m_Validator Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Property Let Validator(value) Set m_Validator = value m_Validator.Initialize(Me) End Property Public Property Get Validator() Validator = m_Validator End Property Public Property Let UserID(value) m_UserID = value End property Public Property Get UserID() UserID = m_Validator.IsUserIDValid() End property End Class Class Validator Private m_User Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Sub Initialize(value) Set m_User = value End Sub Public Function IsUserIDValid() IsUserIDValid = m_User.UserID > 13 End Function End Class Dim mike : Set mike = New User mike.UserID = 123456 mike.Validator = New Validator Response.Write mike.UserID If I'm right and it is a good idea, how can I go a head and fix the infinite loop with the get property UserID? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Tips for documenting a web application?

    - by Pandiya Chendur
    I know that I can take my asp.net application and get it reversed to a UML document, but that doesn't tell the whole story of things like who can use what, what it calls in the way of stored procedures, what pages call what pages etc. etc. Does anyone know of an article where someone has a comprehensive way to document a web application/site? Or shall I just make up my own way?

    Read the article

  • "Special case" records for foreign key constraints

    - by keithjgrant
    Let's say I have a mysql table, called foo with a foreign key option_id constrained to the option table. When I create a foo record, the user may or may not have selected an option, and 'no option' is a viable selection. What is the best way to differentiate between 'null' (i.e. the user hasn't made a selection yet) and 'no option' (i.e. the user selected 'no option')? Right now, my plan is to insert a special record into the option table. Let's say that winds up with an id of 227 (this table already has a number of records at this point, so '1' isn't available). I have no need to access this record at a database level, and it would act as nothing more than a placeholder that the foreign key in the foo table can reference. So do I just hard-code '227' in my codebase when I'm creating 'foo' records where the user has selected 'no option'? The hard-coded id seems sloppy, and leaves room for error as the code is maintained down the road, but I'm not really sure of another approach.

    Read the article

  • What is the best method to convert to an Integer in JavaScript?

    - by Mathew Byrne
    There are several different methods for converting floating point numbers to Integers in JavaScript. My question is what method gives the best performance, is most compatible, or is considered the best practice? Here are a few methods that I know of: var a = 2.5; window.parseInt(a); // 2 Math.floor(a); // 2 a | 0; // 2 I'm sure there are others out there. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • If you were developing shareware softwares for windows, would you target the .Net Framework or use n

    - by bohoo
    For the sake of the question, by 'shareware' I mean a software which is relatively small in size (up to few dozens of mb) and available for download and evaluation through a web site. I'm asking this question, because I don't understand something regarding the current state of windows commercial desktop development. It seems to me that: There is no reliable statistic regarding the extent of windows systems with .Net Framework installed. It makes no sense to force the end user to install the 20-60mb .Net for an application which may be smaller. Applications conforms to the term 'shareware' above have a big share on the win os market. Much of them don't need the capabilities of low level languages like c++, and therefore ideally they should be developed with a RAD enviroment. So, One would suppose there will be a blossom of RAD enviroments for native win code. But I know about only one - Delphi, and Delphi is so unpopular. How is that?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages to use StringBuilder versus XmlDocument or related to create XML documetns?

    - by Rob
    This might be a bit of a code smell, but I have seen it is some production code, namely the use of StringBuilder as opposed to XmlDocument when creating XML documents. In some cases these are write once operations (e.g. create the document and save it to disk) where as others are passing the built string to an XmlDocument to preform an XslTransform to a document that is returned to the client. So obvious question: is there merit to doing things this way, is it something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, or is this the wrong way of doing things?

    Read the article

  • overflow-x AND Middle Mouse Button Moving

    - by Rad The Mad
    My Page is 980px in Width, but I have a few design elements (which belong with the background). I positioned them with position: absolute;. This creates a horizontal scrollbar for those who have a =< 1024 resolution. I disabled that scrollbar with overflow-x:hidden on (and for IE7 and etc). However, when I hold my middle mouse button,(i think this applies to laptop touchpads as well) it let's me move around to the right, is it possible to fix this with anything? (javascript, css)? Tested this issues in Chrome, IE, Firefox.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use an enum that maps to some seed data in a Database?

    - by skb
    I have a table in my database called "OrderItemType" which has about 5 records for the different OrderItemTypes in my system. Each OrderItem contains an OrderItemType, and this gives me referential integrity. In my middletier code, I also have an enum which matches the values in this table so that I can have business logic for the different types. My dev manager says he hates it when people do this, and I am not exactly sure why. Is there a better practice I should be following?

    Read the article

  • Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

    - by byronh
    Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

    Read the article

  • Some good websites to learn about JavaScript and programming architecture?

    - by Jack Roscoe
    I'm not sure if 'architecture' is the correct term, but I've been looking for some articles online which talk about programming design and more about how best to use languages such as JavaScript in a code design sense rather than the actual syntax itself. I have found many websites but a lot seem to be very out dated, and I'm not sure what developments have taken place with JavaScript over the years so do not know how old is too old. If anybody could suggest some great websites, or maybe specific articles you think would be useful, that would be highly appreciated. I am a beginner programmer currently using JavaScript with XML and of course HTML & CSS, and I'm currently trying to get further into and learn more about web development.

    Read the article

  • Does C# allow method overloading, PHP style (__call)?

    - by mr.b
    In PHP, there is a special method named __call($calledMethodName, $arguments), which allows class to catch calls to non-existing methods, and do something about it. Since most of classic languages are strongly typed, compiler won't allow calling a method that does not exist, I'm clear with that part. What I want to accomplish (and I figured this is how I would do it in PHP, but C# is something else) is to proxy calls to a class methods and log each of these calls. Right now, I have code similar to this: class ProxyClass { static logger; public AnotherClass inner { get; private set; } public ProxyClass() { inner = new AnotherClass(); } } class AnotherClass { public void A() {} public void B() {} public void C() {} // ... } // meanwhile, in happyCodeLandia... ProxyClass pc = new ProxyClass(); pc.inner.A(); pc.inner.B(); // ... So, how can I proxy calls to an object instance in extensible way? Extensible, meaning that I don't have to modify ProxyClass whenever AnotherClass changes. In my case, AnotherClass can have any number of methods, so it wouldn't be appropriate to overload or wrap all methods to add logging. I am aware that this might not be the best approach for this kind of problem, so if anyone has idea what approach to use, shoot. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What are the reasons for casting a void pointer?

    - by Maulrus
    I'm learning C++ from scratch, and as such I don't have an expert understanding of C. In C++, you can't cast a void pointer to whatever, and I understand the reasons behind that. However, I know that in C, you can. What are the possible reasons for this? It just seems like it's be a huge hole in type safety, which (to me) seems like a bad thing.

    Read the article

  • Migrating a simple application from Application Delegate to ViewController Class

    - by eco_bach
    Hi Frst of all wanted to send out a huge thanks for the great feedback and support. I have a simple application working, right now simply loads a sequence of images and alows the user to step thru the images by clicking a button. All of my logic is in my Application Delegate class, with the image loading, initialization of UIImage Views etc happening in my applicationDidFinishLaunching method. My next step is to migrate as much as possible all of the logic from this class to a ViewController, to take advantage of the extra functionality etc in viewcontrollers. All my images and imageViews are initialized like the following in my applicationDidFinishLaunching. img = [UIImage imageWithContentsOfFile:[[NSBundle mainBundle] pathForResource:@image1.jpg" ofType:nil]]; imgView = [[UIImageView alloc] initWithImage:img]; How would I migrate this to a ViewController based application? Where would I put all of the logic currently in my applicationDidFinishLaunching method, or for loading of images, is it necessary to only load them here? Any feedback, tips, suggestions appreciated.

    Read the article

  • dynamical binding or switch/case?

    - by kingkai
    A scene like this: I've different of objects do the similar operation as respective func() implements. There're 2 kinds of solution for func_manager() to call func() according to different objects Solution 1: Use virtual function character specified in c++. func_manager works differently accroding to different object point pass in. class Object{ virtual void func() = 0; } class Object_A : public Object{ void func() {}; } class Object_B : public Object{ void func() {}; } void func_manager(Object* a) { a->func(); } Solution 2: Use plain switch/case. func_manager works differently accroding to different type pass in typedef _type_t { TYPE_A, TYPE_B }type_t; void func_by_a() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_by_b() { // do as func() in Object_A } void func_manager(type_t type) { switch(type){ case TYPE_A: func_by_a(); break; case TYPE_B: func_by_b(); default: break; } } My Question are 2: 1. at the view point of DESIGN PATTERN, which one is better? 2. at the view point of RUNTIME EFFCIENCE, which one is better? Especailly as the kinds of Object increases, may be up to 10-15 total, which one's overhead oversteps the other? I don't know how switch/case implements innerly, just a bunch of if/else? Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • What's the standard behaviour for an out parameter when a TryXxxx method returns false?

    - by Matt Lacey
    Assuming a method with the following signature bool TryXxxx(object something, out int toReturn) What is it acceptable for toReturn to be if TryXxxx returns false? In that it's infered that toReturn should never be used if TryXxxx fails does it matter? If toReturn was a nulable type, then it would make sense to return null. But int isn't nullable and I don't want to have to force it to be. If toReturn is always a certain value if TryXxxx fails we risk having the position where 2 values could be considered to indicate the same thing. I can see this leading to potential possible confusion if the 'default' value was returned as a valid response (when TryXxxx returns true). From an implementation point if view it looks like having toReturn be a[ny] value is easiest, but is there anything more important to consider?

    Read the article

  • Is Abstract Factory Pattern implemented correctly for given scenario.... ???

    - by Amit
    First thing... I am novice to pattern world, so correct me if wrong anywhere Scenario: There are multiple companies providing multiple products of diff size so there are 3 entities i.e. Companies, Their Product and size of product I have implement Abstract Pattern on this i.e. so that I will create instance of IProductFactory interface to get desired product... Is below implementation of Abstract Factory Pattern correct ??? If not then please correct the approach + Also tell me if any other pattern can be used for such scenario Thanks in advance... public enum Companies { Samsung = 0, LG = 1, Philips = 2, Sony = 3 } public enum Product { PlasmaTv = 0, DVD = 1 } public enum ProductSize { FortyTwoInch, FiftyFiveInch } interface IProductFactory { IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct(); ISony GetSonyProduct(); } interface ISony { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } interface IPhilips { string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size); } class ProductFactory : IProductFactory { public IPhilips GetPhilipsProduct() { return new Philips(); } public ISony GetSonyProduct() { return new Sony(); } } class Philips : IPhilips { #region IPhilips Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) {// I have ingnore size for now.... string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } class Sony : ISony {// I have ingnore size for now.... #region ISony Members public string CreateProducts(Product product, ProductSize size) { string output = string.Empty; if (product == Product.PlasmaTv) { output = "Plasma TV Created !!!"; } else if (product == Product.DVD) { output = "DVD Created !!!"; } return output; } #endregion } IProductFactory prodFactory = new ProductFactory(); IPhilips philipsObj = prodFactory.GetPhilipsProduct(); MessageBox.Show(philipsObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch)); or //ISony sonyObj = prodFactory.GetSonyProduct(); //MessageBox.Show(sonyObj.CreateProducts(Product.DVD, ProductSize.FortyTwoInch));

    Read the article

  • Is it against best practice to throw Exception on most JUnit tests?

    - by Chris Knight
    Almost all of my JUnit tests are written with the following signature: public void testSomething() throws Exception My reasoning is that I can focus on what I'm testing rather than exception handling which JUnit appears to give me for free. But am I missing anything by doing this? Is it against best practice? Would I gain anything by explicitly catching specific exceptions in my test and then fail()'ing on them?

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • How to call superconstructor in a neat way

    - by sandis
    So here is my code: public MyClass (int y) { super(y,x,x); //some code } My problem is that in this case i want to generate a 'x' and sent to the super constructor. However the call to the superconstructor must be the first line in this constructor. Of course I could do something like this: int x; { x = generateX(); } But this feels ugly, and then the code will run no matter what constructor I use, which feels not so nice. Right now I am consider encapsulating my whole object in another object that only calculates x and then starts this object. Is this the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • Standard Workflow when working with JPA

    - by jschoen
    I am currently trying to wrap my head around working with JPA. I can't help but feel like I am missing something or doing it the wrong way. It just seems forced so far. What I think I know so far is that their are couple of ways to work with JPA and tools to support this. You can do everything in Java using annotations, and let JPA (whatever implementation you decide to use) create your schema and update it when changes are made. You can use a tool to reverse engineer you database and generate the entity classes for you. When the schema is updated you have to regenerate these classes, or manually update them. There seems to be drawbacks to both, and benefits to both (as with all things). My question is in an ideal situation what is the standard workflow with JPA? Most schemas will require updates during the maintenance phase and especially during the development phase, so how is this handled?

    Read the article

  • Style of if: to nest or not to nest

    - by Marco
    A colleague of mine and me had a discussion about the following best-practice issue. Most functions/methods start with some parameter checking. I advocate the following style, which avoids nesting. if (parameter one is ugly) return ERROR; if (parameter two is nonsense || it is raining) return ERROR; // do the useful stuff return result; He, who comes from a more functional/logic programming background, prefers the following, because it reduces the number of exit points from the function. if (parameter one is ok) { if (parameter two is ok && the sun is shining) { // do the useful stuff return result } } return ERROR; Which one would you prefer and why?

    Read the article

  • Haskell: Pattern Matching with Lists

    - by user1670032
    I'm trying to make a function that takes in a list, and if one of the elements is negative, then any elements in that list that are equal to its positive counterpart should be changed to 0. Eg, if there is a -2 in a list, then all 2's in that list should be changed to 0. Any ideas why it only works for some cases and not others? I'm not understanding why this is, I've looked it over several times. changeToZero [] = [] changeToZero [x] = [x] changeToZero (x:zs:y:ws) | (x < 0) && ((-1)*(x) == y) = x : zs : 0 : changeToZero ws changeToZero (x:xs) = x : changeToZero xs *Main changeToZero [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] [-1,1,-2,2,-3,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3] [-2,1,0,3] *Main changeToZero [-2,1,2,3,2] [-2,1,0,3,2] *Main changeToZero [1,-2,2,2,1] [1,-2,2,0,1]

    Read the article

  • What is a good practice to access class attributes in class methods?

    - by Clem
    I always wonder about the best way to access a class attribute from a class method in Java. Could you quickly convince me about which one of the 3 solutions below (or a totally different one :P) is a good practice? public class Test { String a; public String getA(){ return this.a; } public setA(String a){ this.a = a; } // Using Getter public void display(){ // Solution 1 System.out.println(this.a); // Solution 2 System.out.println(getA()); // Solution 3 System.out.println(this.getA()); } // Using Setter public void myMethod(String b, String c){ // Solution 1 this.a = b + c; // Solution 2 setA(b + c); // Solution 3 this.setA(b + c); } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >