Search Results

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

Page 168/348 | < Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >

  • Bad Design? Constructor of composition uses `this`

    - by tanascius
    Example: class MyClass { Composition m_Composition; void MyClass() { m_Composition = new Composition( this ); } } I am interested in using depenency-injection here. So I will have to refactor the constructor to something like: void MyClass( Composition composition ) { m_Composition = composition; } However I get a problem now, since the Composition-object relies on the object of type MyClass which is just created. Can a dependency container resolve this? Is it supposed to do so? Or is it just bad design from the beginning on?

    Read the article

  • Technical non-terminating condition in a loop

    - by Snarfblam
    Most of us know that a loop should not have a non-terminating condition. For example, this C# loop has a non-terminating condition: any even value of i. This is an obvious logic error. void CountByTwosStartingAt(byte i) { // If i is even, it never exceeds 254 for(; i < 255; i += 2) { Console.WriteLine(i); } } Sometimes there are edge cases that are extremely unlikeley, but technically constitute non-exiting conditions (stack overflows and out-of-memory errors aside). Suppose you have a function that counts the number of sequential zeros in a stream: int CountZeros(Stream s) { int total = 0; while(s.ReadByte() == 0) total++; return total; } Now, suppose you feed it this thing: class InfiniteEmptyStream:Stream { // ... Other members ... public override int Read(byte[] buffer, int offset, int count) { Array.Clear(buffer, offset, count); // Output zeros return count; // Never returns -1 (end of stream) } } Or more realistically, maybe a stream that returns data from external hardware, which in certain cases might return lots of zeros (such as a game controller sitting on your desk). Either way we have an infinite loop. This particular non-terminating condition stands out, but sometimes they don't. A completely real-world example as in an app I'm writing. An endless stream of zeros will be deserialized into infinite "empty" objects (until the collection class or GC throws an exception because I've exceeded two billion items). But this would be a completely unexpected circumstance (considering my data source). How important is it to have absolutely no non-terminating conditions? How much does this affect "robustness?" Does it matter if they are only "theoretically" non-terminating (is it okay if an exception represents an implicit terminating condition)? Does it matter whether the app is commercial? If it is publicly distributed? Does it matter if the problematic code is in no way accessible through a public interface/API? Edit: One of the primary concerns I have is unforseen logic errors that can create the non-terminating condition. If, as a rule, you ensure there are no non-terminating conditions, you can identify or handle these logic errors more gracefully, but is it worth it? And when? This is a concern orthogonal to trust.

    Read the article

  • C++ Headers/Source Files

    - by incrediman
    (Duplicate of C++ Code in Header Files) What is the standard way to split up C++ classes between header and source files? Am I supposed to put everything in the header file? Or should I declare the classes in the header file and define them in a .cpp file (source file)? Sorry if I'm shaky on the terminology here (declare, define, etc). So what's the standard?

    Read the article

  • Why is 'virtual' optional for overridden methods in derived classes?

    - by squelart
    When a method is declared as virtual in a class, its overrides in derived classes are automatically considered virtual as well, and the C++ language makes this keyword virtual optional in this case: class Base { virtual void f(); }; class Derived : public Base { void f(); // 'virtual' is optional but implied. }; My question is: What is the rationale for making virtual optional? I know that it is not absolutely necessary for the compiler to be told that, but I would think that developers would benefit if such a constraint was enforced by the compiler. E.g., sometimes when I read others' code I wonder if a method is virtual and I have to track down its superclasses to determine that. And some coding standards (Google) make it a 'must' to put the virtual keyword in all subclasses.

    Read the article

  • MapReduce programming system in java-actionscript

    - by eco_bach
    Just finished reading ch23 in the excellent 'Beautiful Code' http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510046 on Distributed Programming with MapReduce. I understand that MapReduce is a programming system designed for large-scale data processing problems, but I have a hard time getting my head around the basic examples given and how I might apply them in real world situations. Can someone give a simple example of MapReduce implemented using either java, javascript or actionscript?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern to separate messages from actual process.

    - by Manish Gupta
    I am having a C# application to sync data between PC and palm devices. There are codes written like below: showMessage("synchronizing Table1"); Sync(destTable1,sourceTable1); Sync(destTable2,sourceTable2); showMessage("synchronizing Table2"); // more code How do I separate the actual process of synchronizing from displaying message? Which design pattern to follow? Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • What is the correct approach to using GWT with persistent objects?

    - by dankilman
    Hi, I am currently working on a simple web application through Google App engine using GWT. It should be noted that this is my first attempt at such a task. I have run into to following problem/dilema: I have a simple Class (getters/setters and nothing more. For the sake of clarity I will refer to this Class as DataHolder) and I want to make it persistent. To do so I have used JDO which required me to add some annotations and more specifically add a Key field to be used as the primary key. The problem is that using the Key class requires me to import com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key which is ok on the server side, but then I can't use DataHolder on the client side, because GWT doesn't allow it (as far as I know). So I have created a sister Class ClientDataHolder which is almost identical, though it doesn't have all the JDO annotations nor the Key field. Now this actually works but It feels like I'm doing something wrong. Using this approach would require maintaining to separate classes for each entity I wish to have. So my question is: Is there a better way of doing this? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Do you ever make a code change and just test rather than trying to fully understand the change you'v

    - by Clay Nichols
    I'm working in a 12 year old code base which I have been the only developer on. There are times that I'll make a a very small change based on an intuition (or quantum leap in logic ;-). Usually I try to deconstruct that change and make sure I read thoroughly the code. However sometimes, (more and more these days) I just test and make sure it had the effect I wanted. (I'm a pretty thorough tester and would test even if I read the code). This works for me and we have surprisingly (compared to most software I see) few bugs escape into the wild. But what I'm wondering is whether this is just the "art" side of coding. Yes, in an ideal world you would exhaustively read every bit of code that your change modified, but I in practice, if you're confident that it only affects a small section of code, is this a common practice? I can obviously see where this would be a disastrous approach in the hands of a poor programmer. But then, I've seen programmers who ostensibly are reading the code and break stuff left and right (in their own code based which only they have been working on).

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • Using a regex pattern to find revision numbers from a svn merge

    - by zyzy
    svn diff -rXX:HEAD Will give me a format like this, if there has been a merge between those revisions: Merged /<branch>:rXXX,XXX-XXX or Merged /<branch>:rXXX I'm not very familiar with regex and am trying to put together a pattern which will match all the numbers (merged revision numbers) AFTER matching the "Merged /branch:r" part. So far I have this to match the first part: [Mm]erged.*[a-zA-Z]:r Thanks in adv. for the help :)

    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

  • What should I use to increase performance. View/Query/Temporary Table

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I want to know the performance of using Views, Temp Tables and Direct Queries Usage in a Stored Procedure. I have a table that gets created every time when a trigger gets fired. I know this trigger will be fired very rare and only once at the time of setup. Now I have to use that created table from triggers at many places for fetching data and I confirms it that no one make any changes in that table. i.e ReadOnly Table. I have to use this tables data along with multiple tables to join and fetch result for further queries say select * from triggertable By Using temp table select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on select a,b, c from #tx --do something select d,e,f from #tx ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. By Using Views create view viewname ( select ... from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on ) select a,b, c from viewname --do something select d,e,f from viewname ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. This View can be used in other places as well. So I will be creating at database rather than at sp By Using Direct Query select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something . . --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. Now I can create a view/temporary table/ directly query usage in all upcoming queries. What would be the best to use in this case.

    Read the article

  • Performing centralized authorization for multiple applications

    - by Vaibhav
    Here's a question that I have been wrestling with for a while. We have a situation wherein we have a number of applications that we have created. These have grown organically over a period of time. All of these applications have permissions code built into them that controls access to various parts of the application depending on whether the currently logged in user has the necessary permissions or not. Alongside these applications is a utility application which allows an administrator to map users to permissions for all applications - the way it works is that every application has code which reads this external database of the said utility application to check if the currently logged in user has the necessary permission or not. Now, the question is this. Should the user-permissions mapping information reside in and be owned by the applications themselves, or is it okay to have this information reside within an external entity/DB (as in this case the utility application's database). Part of me thinks that application permissions are very specific to the application context itself, so shouldn't be separated from the application itself. But I am not sure. Any comments?

    Read the article

  • How can I use Object Oriented Javascript to interact with HTML Objects

    - by Steve
    I am very new to object orientated javascript, with experience writing gui's in python and java. I am trying to create html tables that I can place in locations throughout a webpage. Each html table would have two css layouts that control if it is selected or not. I can write all of the interaction if I only have one table. It gets confusing when I have multiple tables. I am wondering how to place these tables throughout a blank webpage and then access the tables individually. I think I am having trouble understanding how inheritance and hierarchy works in javascript/html. NOTE: I am not asking how to make a table. I am trying to dynamically create multiple tables and place them throughout a webpage. Then access their css independently and change it (move them to different locations or change the way the look, independently of the other tables).

    Read the article

  • What is the reason not to use select * ?

    - by Chris Lively
    I've seen a number of people claim that you should specifically name each column you want in your select query. Assuming I'm going to use all of the columns anyway, why would I not use SELECT *? Even considering the question from 9/24, I don't think this is an exact duplicate as I'm approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective. One of our principles is to not optimize before it's time. With that in mind, it seems like using SELECT * should be the preferred method until it is proven to be a resource issue or the schema is pretty much set in stone. Which, as we know, won't occur until development is completely done. That said, is there an overriding issue to not use SELECT *?

    Read the article

  • Why represent shopping carts and order invoices differently in a domain model?

    - by Todd
    I've built some shopping cart systems in the past, but I always designed them such that the final order invoice is just a shopping cart that has been marked as "purchased". All the logic for adding/removing/changing items in a cart is also the logic for the order. All data is stored in the same tables in the database. But it seems this is not the proper way to design an e-commerce site.. Can someone explain the benefit of separating the shopping cart from invoices in the domain model? It seems to me this would lead to a lot of duplicated code, an extra set of tables in the database, and make it harder to maintain in the event the system need to start accommodating more complicated orders (like specifying selected options for an item which may or may not change the price/availability/shipping time of the order). I'm assuming I just haven't seen the light, as every book and other example I see seems to separate these two seemingly similar concerns -- but I can't find any explanation as to the benefit of doing such! It's also the case in the systems that I design that changes are often made after the initial order is confirmed. It's not uncommon for items to be removed, replaced, or added afterwards (but prior to fulfillment).

    Read the article

  • C++ error message output format

    - by sub
    If I want to trigger an error in my interpreter I call this function: Error( ErrorType type, ErrorSeverity severity, const char* msg, int line ); However, with that I can only output Name error: Undefined variable in line 1 instead of Name error: Undefined variable 'someVariableName' in line 1 I'm working entirely with strings (except for the error messages as they all are constant at the moment), so sprintf won't work. What is the best way to create an efficient error function that can output a constant message combined with a string that describes which object, e.g.: a non-existing variable, triggered the error?

    Read the article

  • Am I using too much jQuery? When am I crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately I found myself using jQuery and JavaScript a lot, often to do the same things that I did before using CSS. For example, I alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using JavaScript/jQuery. Is this acceptable? Or should I keep using CSS for these kinds of things? So the real question is: When I'm using too much jQuery? How can I understand when I'm crossing the line?

    Read the article

  • Simplest way to create a wrapper class around some strings for a WPF DataGrid?

    - by Joel
    I'm building a simple hex editor in C#, and I've decided to use each cell in a DataGrid to display a byte*. I know that DataGrid will take a list and display each object in the list as a row, and each of that object's properties as columns. I want to display rows of 16 bytes each, which will require a wrapper with 16 string properties. While doable, it's not the most elegant solution. Is there an easier way? I've already tried creating a wrapper around a public string array of size 16, but that doesn't seem to work. Thanks *The rational for this is that I can have spaces between each byte without having to strip them all out when I want to save my edited file. Also it seems like it'll be easier to label the rows and columns.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >