Search Results

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

Page 164/348 | < Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >

  • Where to put a recursive function when following MVC?

    - by Glibly
    Hello, I have a recursive function being used to generate a menu on my site. The function is calling a database for each level of children in the menu, and generating html for them. I've currently put this function in a Model part of the code, however, I feel that generating html in the model goes against the MVC. I didn't put it in a Controller because I didn't want to have database calls or HTML generation there. I didn't put it in a View because I didn't want database calls there either. Is the 'correct' way of tackling this problem to have a Controller call a recursive function in a Model that returns a 2d array representing the menu. Then pass the array to a view which has it's own recursive function for generating html from the array?

    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

  • Whats the best semantic default/starting layout for html5?

    - by John Isaacks
    I am a little confused on how the new tags should go. Is this correct: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> </head> <body> <section> <header> <nav></nav> </header> <section> </section> <footer> </footer> <section> </body> </html> Or should one of the sections be an <article>? What should be the starting layout?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between a private and public funtion?

    - by Kyle
    I am a new programmer, and I started in C and am now starting to enjoy JavaScript and a tiny bit of PHP more. Lately I've heard the terms 'private' and 'public' functions a lot. Could anybody give an explanation of the both and how they are of use to a programmer? And I'm probably totally wrong here... but is a (function(){}) in javascript a private function?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for passing configuration to each GUI object

    - by Laimoncijus
    Hi, I am writing an application, where I do have few different windows implemented, where each window is a separate class. Now I need somehow to pass a single configuration object to all of them. My GUI is designed in way, where I have one main window, which may create some child windows of its own, and these child windows can have their own childs (so there is no possibility to create all windows in initialization part and feed the config object to all of them from the very beginning)... What would be best practice for sharing this configuration object between them? Always passing via constructor or maybe making it somewhere as final public static and let each window object to access it when needed? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

    - by Mat Nadrofsky
    Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

    Read the article

  • Where should my "filtering" logic reside with Linq-2-SQL and ASP.NET-MVC in View or Controller?

    - by Nate Bross
    I have a main Table, with several "child" tables. TableA and TableAChild1 and TableAChild2. I have a view which shows the information in TableA, and then has two columns of all items in TableAChild1 and TableAChild2 respectivly, they are rendered with Partial views. Both child tables have a bit field for VisibleToAll, and depending on user role, I'd like to either display all related rows, or related rows where VisibleToAll = true. This code, feels like it should be in the controller, but I'm not sure how it would look, because as it stands, the controller (limmited version) looks like this: return View("TableADetailView", repos.GetTableA(id)); Would something like this be even work, and would it be bad what if my DataContext gets submitted, would that delete all the rows that have VisibleToAll == false? var tblA = repos.GetTableA(id); tblA.TableAChild1 = tblA.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); tblA.TableAChild2 = tblA.TableAChild2.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); return View("TableADetailView", tblA); It would also be simple to add that logic to the RendarPartial call from the main view: <% Html.RenderPartial("TableAChild1", Model.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); %>

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to "wrap" implementation in C#

    - by igor
    Hello, I have these classes in C# (.NET Framework 3.5) described below: public class Base { public int State {get; set;} public virtual int Method1(){} public virtual string Method2(){} ... public virtual void Method10(){} } public class B: Base { // some implementation } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; public class Proxy(B b) { _b = b; } public override int Method1() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method1(); else return base.Method1(); } public override string Method2() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method2(); else return base.Method2(); } public override void Method10() { if (State == Running) _b.Method10(); else base.Method10(); } } I want to get something this: public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) // may be some other rule return _b; else return base; // compile error } and my Proxy's implementation will be: public class Proxy: Base { ... public override int Method1() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method1(); } public override string Method2() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method2(); } ... } Of course, I can do this (aggregation of base implementation): public RepeaterOfBase: Base // no any overrides, just inheritance { } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; private RepeaterOfBase _Base; public class Proxy(B b, RepeaterOfBase aBase) { _b = b; _base = aBase; } } ... public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) return _b; else return _Base; } ... But instance of Base class is very huge and I have to avoid to have other additional copy in memory. So I have to simplify my code have to "wrap" implementation have to avoid a code duplication have to avoid aggregation of any additional instance of Base class (duplication) Is it possible to reach these goals?

    Read the article

  • How work with common utils project.

    - by ais
    For example, I have some project Common.Utils.csproj and use it in all other projects. I can store its (Utils) sourses in one repository and modify it only there, register dll in gac and use it as dll in other projects, or I can clone sourse anywhere I need, include project in solution, use it as source and push modifications. So, what is best practice?

    Read the article

  • How can I determine/use $(this) in js callback script

    - by Rabbott
    I am using Rails and jQuery, making an ajax call initiated by clicking a link. I setup my application.js file to look like the one proposed here and it works great. The problem I'm having is how can I use $(this) in my say.. update.js.erb file to represent the link I clicked? I don't want to have to assign an ID to every one, then recompile that id in the callback script.. EDIT To give a simple example of something similar to what I'm trying to do (and much easier to explain): If a user clicks on a link, that deletes that element from a list, the controller would handle the callback, and the callback (which is in question here) would delete the element I clicked on, so in the callback delete.js.erb would just say $(this).fadeOut(); This is why I want to use $(this) so that I dont have to assign an ID to every element (which would be the end of the world, just more verbose markup) application.js jQuery.ajaxSetup({ 'beforeSend': function(xhr) {xhr.setRequestHeader("Accept", "text/javascript,application/javascript,text/html")} }) function _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, method) { if (jQuery.isFunction(data)) { callback = data; data = {}; } return jQuery.ajax({ type: method, url: url, data: data, success: callback, dataType: type }); } jQuery.extend({ put: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'PUT'); }, delete_: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'DELETE'); } }); jQuery.fn.submitWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('submit', false); this.submit(function() { $.post(this.action, $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via get if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.getWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.get($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via Post if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.postWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.post($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.putWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.put($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.deleteWithAjax = function() { this.removeAttr('onclick'); this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.delete_($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // This will "ajaxify" the links function ajaxLinks(){ $('.ajaxForm').submitWithAjax(); $('a.get').getWithAjax(); $('a.post').postWithAjax(); $('a.put').putWithAjax(); $('a.delete').deleteWithAjax(); } show.html.erb <%= link_to 'Link Title', article_path(a, :sentiment => Article::Sentiment['Neutral']), :class => 'put' %> The combination of the two things will call update.js.erb in rails, the code in that file is used as the callback of the ajax ($.put in this case) update.js.erb // user feedback $("#notice").html('<%= flash[:notice] %>'); // update the background color $(this OR e.target).attr("color", "red");

    Read the article

  • how to handle exceptions/errors in php?

    - by fayer
    when using 3rd part libraries they tend to throw exceptions to the browser and hence kill the script. eg. if im using doctrine and insert a duplicate record to the database it will throw an exception. i wonder, what is best practice for handling these exceptions. should i always do a try...catch? but doesn't that mean that i will have try...catch all over the script and for every single function/class i use? Or is it just for debugging? i don't quite get the picture. Cause if a record already exists in a database, i want to tell the user "Record already exists". And if i code a library or a function, should i always use "throw new Expcetion($message, $code)" when i want to create an error? Please shed a light on how one should create/handle exceptions/errors. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • highlite text parts with jquery, best practice

    - by helle
    Hey guys, i have a list of items containig names. then i have a eventlistener, which ckecks for keypress event. if the user types i.g. an A all names starting with an A should be viewed with the A bold. so all starting As should be bold. what is the best way using jquery to highlite only a part of a string? thanks for your help

    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

  • Writing a synchronized thread-safety wrapper for NavigableMap

    - by polygenelubricants
    java.util.Collections currently provide the following utility methods for creating synchronized wrapper for various collection interfaces: synchronizedCollection(Collection<T> c) synchronizedList(List<T> list) synchronizedMap(Map<K,V> m) synchronizedSet(Set<T> s) synchronizedSortedMap(SortedMap<K,V> m) synchronizedSortedSet(SortedSet<T> s) Analogously, it also has 6 unmodifiedXXX overloads. The glaring omission here are the utility methods for NavigableMap<K,V>. It's true that it extends SortedMap, but so does SortedSet extends Set, and Set extends Collection, and Collections have dedicated utility methods for SortedSet and Set. Presumably NavigableMap is a useful abstraction, or else it wouldn't have been there in the first place, and yet there are no utility methods for it. So the questions are: Is there a specific reason why Collections doesn't provide utility methods for NavigableMap? How would you write your own synchronized wrapper for NavigableMap? Glancing at the source code for OpenJDK version of Collections.java seems to suggest that this is just a "mechanical" process Is it true that in general you can add synchronized thread-safetiness feature like this? If it's such a mechanical process, can it be automated? (Eclipse plug-in, etc) Is this code repetition necessary, or could it have been avoided by a different OOP design pattern?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >