Search Results

Search found 53327 results on 2134 pages for 'key value coding'.

Page 169/2134 | < Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >

• stored procedure in mysql

  - by parag

  Can I use Cursor with stored procedure in mysql and can receive the output values form it

  Read the article

• jQuery programming style?

  - by Sam Dufel

  I was recently asked to fix something on a site which I haven't worked on before. I haven't really worked with jQuery that much, but I figured I'd take a look and see if I could fix it. I've managed to mostly clear up the problem, but I'm still horrified at the way they chose to build this site. On document load, they replace the click() method of every anchor tag and form element with the same massive function. When clicked, that function then checks if the tag has one of a few different attributes (non-standard attributes, even), and does a variety of different tasks depending on what attributes exist and what their values are. Some hyperlinks have an attribute on them called 'ajaxrel', which makes the click() function look for another (hidden) hyperlink with an ID specified by the ajaxrel attribute, and then calls the click() function for that other hyperlink (which was also modified by this same click() function). On the server side, all the php files are quite long and have absolutely no indentation. This whole site has been a nightmare to debug. Is this standard jQuery practice? This navigation scheme seems terrible. Does anyone else actually use jQuery this way? I'd like to start incorporating it into my projects, but looking at this site is giving me a serious headache. Here's the click() function for hyperlinks: function ajaxBoxA(theElement, urltosend, ajaxbox, dialogbox) { if ($(theElement).attr("href") != undefined) var urltosend = $(theElement).attr("href"); if ($(theElement).attr('toajaxbox') != undefined) var ajaxbox = $(theElement).attr('toajaxbox'); // check to see if dialog box is called for. if ($(theElement).attr('dialogbox') != undefined) var dialogbox = $(theElement).attr('dialogbox'); var dodialog = 0; if (dialogbox != undefined) { // if dialogbox doesn't exist, then flag to create dialog box. var isDiaOpen = $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').parent().parent().is(".ui-dialog-container"); dodialog = 1; if (isDiaOpen) { dodialog = 0; } dialogbox = parseUri(dialogbox); dialogoptions = { close: function () { // $("[id^=hierarchy]",this).NestedSortableDestroy(); $(this).dialog('destroy').remove() } }; for ( var keyVar in dialogbox['queryKey'] ) eval( "dialogoptions." + keyVar + " = dialogbox['queryKey'][keyVar]"); }; $("body").append("<div id='TB_load'><img src='"+imgLoader.src+"' /></div>"); $('#TB_load').show(); if (urltosend.search(/\?/) > 0) { urltosend = urltosend + "&-ajax=1"; } else { urltosend = urltosend + "?-ajax=1"; } if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).empty(); }); }; $.ajax({ type: "GET", url: urltosend, data: "", async: false, dataType: "html", success: function (html) { var re = /^<toajaxbox>(.*?)<\/toajaxbox>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); ajaxbox = match[1]; html = Right(html, String(html).length - String(match[1]).length); } var re = /^<header>(.*?)<\/header>+(.*)/; if (re.test(html)) { var match = re.exec(html); window.location = match[1]; return false; } if (html.length > 0) { var newHtml = $(html); if ($('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length) { $('[ajaxbox="' + ajaxbox + '"]').each( function () { $(this).replaceWith(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml) if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); }); if ($('[ajaxdialog="' + ajaxbox + '"]').length = 0) { if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } else { $("body").append(newHtml).ready( function () { ajaxBoxInit(newHtml); if (window.ajaxboxsuccess) ajaxboxsuccess(newHtml); }); if (dodialog) $(newHtml).wrap("<div class='flora ui-dialog-content' ajaxdialog='" + ajaxbox + "' style='overflow:auto;'></div>").parent().dialog(dialogoptions); } } var rel = $(theElement).attr('ajaxtriggerrel'); if (rel != undefined) $('a[ajaxrel="' + rel + '"]').click(); tb_remove(); return false; }, complete: function () { $("#TB_load").remove(); } }); return false; }

  Read the article

• putting a capital 'I' in front of JAVA interfaces

  - by jax

  Many years ago when I was at uni they said to put a capital i (I) in front of interfaces. Is this still a convention because I see many interfaces that do not follow this.

  Read the article

• How to accomplish covariant return types when returning a shared_ptr?

  - by Kyle

  using namespace boost; class A {}; class B : public A {}; class X { virtual shared_ptr<A> foo(); }; class Y : public X { virtual shared_ptr<B> foo(); }; The return types aren't covariant (nor are they, therefore, legal), but they would be if I was using raw pointers instead. What's the commonly accepted idiom to work around this, if there is one?

  Read the article

• Why is there so much poorly indented code out there?

  - by dsimcha

  The more I browse the code to open source projects in languages that aren't Python, the more I realize that it seems a lot of programmers don't believe in proper indentation. (I won't mention any projects specifically to avoid having anyone take this question too personally.) Usually code is indented, but in a way just different enough from the standard style that it drives me crazy, especially in old/crufty code. I've noticed that when I write in C-like languages, I tend to indent correctly as religiously as when I'm writing in Python, with the exception of debugging code that I actually want to stick out like a sore thumb. Given how easy it is with a modern IDE to fix incorrect indentation, what are some rationales for not religiously keeping indentation in sync with braces?

  Read the article

• Catching specific vs. generic exceptions in c#

  - by Scott Vercuski

  This question comes from a code analysis run against an object I've created. The analysis says that I should catch a more specific exception type than just the basic Exception. Do you find yourself using just catching the generic Exception or attempting to catch a specific Exception and defaulting to a generic Exception using multiple catch blocks? One of the code chunks in question is below: internal static bool ClearFlags(string connectionString, Guid ID) { bool returnValue = false; SqlConnection dbEngine = new SqlConnection(connectionString); SqlCommand dbCmd = new SqlCommand("ClearFlags", dbEngine); SqlDataAdapter dataAdapter = new SqlDataAdapter(dbCmd); dbCmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; try { dbCmd.Parameters.AddWithValue("@ID", ID.ToString()); dbEngine.Open(); dbCmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); dbEngine.Close(); returnValue = true; } catch (Exception ex) { ErrorHandler(ex); } return returnValue; } Thank you for your advice EDIT: Here is the warning from the code analysis Warning 351 CA1031 : Microsoft.Design : Modify 'ClearFlags(string, Guid)' to catch a more specific exception than 'Exception' or rethrow the exception

  Read the article

• Formatting associative array declaration

  - by Drew Stephens

  When declaring an associative array, how do you handle the indentation of the elements of the array? I've seen a number of different styles (PHP syntax, since that's what I've been in lately). This is a pretty picky and trivial thing, so move along if you're interested in more serious pursuits. 1) Indent elements one more level: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 2) Indent elements two levels: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 3) Indent elements beyond the array constructor, with closing brace aligned with the start of the constructor: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 4) Indent elements beyond the array construct, with closing brace aligned with opening brace: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); Personally, I like #3—the broad indentation makes it clear that we're at a break point in the code (constructing the array), and having the closing brace floating a bit to the left of all of the array's data makes it clear that this declaration is done.

  Read the article

• C++ class initialisation containing class variable initialization

  - by Phil Hannent

  I noticed some code of a colleague today that initialized class variables in the initialization. However it was causing a warning, he says because of the order they are in. My question is why is it better to do variable initialization where it currently is and not within the curly brackets? DiagramScene::DiagramScene( int slideNo, QRectF screenRect, MainWindow* parent ) : QGraphicsScene( screenRect, parent ), myParent( parent ), slideUndoImageCurrentIndex(-1), nextGroupID(0), m_undoInProgress(false), m_deleteItemOnNextUndo(0) line(0), path(0) { /* Setup default brush for background */ scDetail->bgBrush.setStyle(Qt::SolidPattern); scDetail->bgBrush.setColor(Qt::white); setBackgroundBrush(scDetail->bgBrush); }

  Read the article

• Method return values and exceptions

  - by dnagirl

  I have an interface called iIncident which defines a single method when(). when() should return a DateTime object. I'm trying to decide what to do if $object->when() has no DateTime to return as might be the case just after an object is instantiated and before all its properties are set. My choices are: return false throw some kind of Exception return some default DateTime like '9999-01-01' My inclination is to go with an Exception since $object really can't act as an incident until it knows when it occurred. I don't want to return a default DateTime because it complicates comparisons and it's not true. And I don't really want to return false because then I have to check for it every time I call the method- but if that is the preferred method, I guess I will. Is throwing an exception the best way? And is there a predefined exception type I should use (none of the SPL ones struck me as particularly appropriate- but that might just indicate my lack of experience)?

  Read the article

• C++ cast syntax styles

  - by palm3D

  A question related to Regular cast vs. static_cast vs. dynamic_cast: What cast syntax style do you prefer in C++? C-style cast syntax: (int)foo C++-style cast syntax: static_cast<int>(foo) constructor syntax: int(foo) They may not translate to exactly the same instructions (do they?) but their effect should be the same (right?). If you're just casting between the built-in numeric types, I find C++-style cast syntax too verbose. As a former Java coder I tend to use C-style cast syntax instead, but my local C++ guru insists on using constructor syntax. What do you think?

  Read the article

• C# Test if an object is an Enum

  - by Aran Mulholland

  I would like to know if 'theObject' is an enum (of any enum type) foreach (var item in Enum.GetValues(theObject.GetType())) { //make sure we have all the enumeration values in the collection if (this.ValuesCollection.Contains(item)) { } else { this.ValuesCollection.Add(item); } Console.WriteLine(item.ToString()); Console.WriteLine(item.GetType().ToString()); }

  Read the article

• Assigning a variable of a struct that contains an instance of a class to another variable

  - by xport

  In my understanding, assigning a variable of a struct to another variable of the same type will make a copy. But this rule seems broken as shown on the following figure. Could you explain why this happened? using System; namespace ReferenceInValue { class Inner { public int data; public Inner(int data) { this.data = data; } } struct Outer { public Inner inner; public Outer(int data) { this.inner = new Inner(data); } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Outer p1 = new Outer(1); Outer p2 = p1; Console.WriteLine("p1:{0}, p2:{1}", p1.inner.data, p2.inner.data); p1.inner.data = 2; Console.WriteLine("p1:{0}, p2:{1}", p1.inner.data, p2.inner.data); p2.inner.data = 3; Console.WriteLine("p1:{0}, p2:{1}", p1.inner.data, p2.inner.data); Console.ReadKey(); } } }

  Read the article

• Most readable way to write simple conditional check

  - by JRL

  What would be the most readable/best way to write a multiple conditional check such as shown below? Two possibilities that I could think of (this is Java but the language really doesn't matter here): Option 1: boolean c1 = passwordField.getPassword().length > 0; boolean c2 = !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); boolean c3 = !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty(); if (c1 && c2 && c3) { okButton.setEnabled(true); } Option 2: if (passwordField.getPassword().length > 0 && !stationIDTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() && !userNameTextField.getText().trim().isEmpty() { okButton.setEnabled(true); } What I don't like about option 2 is that the line wraps and then indentation becomes a pain. What I don't like about option 1 is that it creates variables for nothing and requires looking at two places. So what do you think? Any other options?

  Read the article

• Gracefully avoiding NullPointerException in Java

  - by Yuval A

  Consider this line: if (object.getAttribute("someAttr").equals("true")) { // .... Obviously this line is a potential bug, the attribute might be null and we will get a NullPointerException. So we need to refactor it to one of two choices: First option: if ("true".equals(object.getAttribute("someAttr"))) { // .... Second option: String attr = object.getAttribute("someAttr"); if (attr != null) { if (attr.equals("true")) { // .... The first option is awkward to read but more concise, while the second one is clear in intent, but verbose. Which option do you prefer in terms of readability?

  Read the article

• Should Python import statements always be at the top of a module?

  - by Adam J. Forster

  PEP 08 states: Imports are always put at the top of the file, just after any module comments and docstrings, and before module globals and constants. However if the class/method/function that I am importing is only used in rare cases, surely it is more efficient to do the import when it is needed? Isn't this: class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) from datetime import datetime self.datetime = datetime.now() more efficient than this? from datetime import datetime class SomeClass(object): def not_often_called(self) self.datetime = datetime.now()

  Read the article

• Use of 'super' keyword when accessing non-overridden superclass methods

  - by jonny

  I'm trying to get the hang of inheritance in Java and have learnt that when overriding methods (and hiding fields) in sub classes, they can still be accessed from the super class by using the 'super' keyword. What I want to know is, should the 'super' keyword be used for non-overridden methods? Is there any difference (for non-overridden methods / non-hidden fields)? I've put together an example below. public class Vehicle { public int tyreCost; public Vehicle(int tyreCost) { this.tyreCost = tyreCost; } public int getTyreCost() { return tyreCost; } } and public class Car extends Vehicle { public int wheelCount; public Vehicle(int tyreCost, int wheelCount) { super(tyreCost); this.wheelCount = wheelCount; } public int getTotalTyreReplacementCost() { return getTyreCost() * wheelCount; } } Specifically, given that getTyreCost() hasn't been overridden, should getTotalTyreReplacementCost() use getTyreCost(), or super.getTyreCost() ? I'm wondering whether super should be used in all instances where fields or methods of the superclass are accessed (to show in the code that you are accessing the superclass), or only in the overridden/hidden ones (so they stand out).

  Read the article

• Style question: Writing "this." before instance variable and methods: good or bad idea?

  - by Uri

  One of my nasty (?) programming habits in C++ and Java is to always precede calls or accesses to members with a this. For example: this.process(this.event). A few of my students commented on this, and I'm wondering if I am teaching bad habits. My rationale is: 1) Makes code more readable — Easier to distinguish fields from local variables. 2) Makes it easier to distinguish standard calls from static calls (especially in Java) 3) Makes me remember that this call (unless the target is final) could end up on a different target, for example in an overriding version in a subclass. Obviously, this has zero impact on the compiled program, it's just readability. So am I making it more or less readable? Related Question Note: I turned it into a CW since there really isn't a correct answer.

  Read the article

• multiple return values from PHP with jQuery AJAX

  - by benhowdle89

  I'm using this jQuery code: $.ajax ({ type: "POST", url: "customerfilter.php", data: dataString, cache: false, success: function(html) { $(".custName").html(html); } }); How can i do something like this: $(".projDesc").html(html1); So i can split the returned results into two html elements? echo "<p>" .$row['cust_name']. "</p>"; thats the PHP i'm using and i want to echo another statement which i can put into another HTML element Does this make sense?

  Read the article

• Change default properties for .resx files created with Visual Studio 2010

  - by Tomas Lycken

  When creating a new .resx file anywhere in my solution, I would like the following properties to be other than the default: Copy to Output Directory: Copy if newer Custom Tool namespace: Booking.Resources Access Modifier: public Is there any way I can change the default Visual Studio behavior on creation of these files, so I don't have to make the above changes manually each time?

  Read the article

• Better way to write this Java code?

  - by Macha

  public void handleParsedCommand(String[] commandArr) { if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("message")) { int target = Integer.parseInt(commandArr[1]); String message = commandArr[2]; MachatServer.sendMessage(target, this.conId, message); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("quit")) { // Tell the server to disconnect us. MachatServer.disconnect(conId); } else if(commandArr[0].equalsIgnoreCase("confirmconnect")) { // Blah blah and so on for another 10 types of command } else { try { out.write("Unknown: " + commandArr[0] + "\n"); } catch (IOException e) { System.out.println("Failed output warning of unknown command."); } } } I have this part of my server code for handling the types of messages. Each message contains the type in commandArr[0] and the parameters in the rest of commandArr[]. However, this current code, while working seems very unelegant. Is there a better way to handle it? (To the best of my knowledge, String values can't be used in switch statements, and even then, a switch statement would only be a small improvement.

  Read the article

• How to provide default argument as this object?

  - by atch

  I would like to have declaration like this: void Date::get_days_name(const Date& = this) which I would understand that if no argument is provided use this object as an argument. For some reason in VS I'm getting err msg: 'Error 1 error C2355: 'this' : can only be referenced inside non-static member ' Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Omit return type in C++0x

  - by Clinton

  I've recently found myself using the following macro with gcc 4.5 in C++0x mode: #define RETURN(x) -> decltype(x) { return x; } And writing functions like this: template <class T> auto f(T&& x) RETURN (( g(h(std::forward<T>(x))) )) I've been doing this to avoid the inconvenience having to effectively write the function body twice, and having keep changes in the body and the return type in sync (which in my opinion is a disaster waiting to happen). The problem is that this technique only works on one line functions. So when I have something like this (convoluted example): template <class T> auto f(T&& x) -> ... { auto y1 = f(x); auto y2 = h(y1, g1(x)); auto y3 = h(y1, g2(x)); if (y1) { ++y3; } return h2(y2, y3); } Then I have to put something horrible in the return type. Furthermore, whenever I update the function, I'll need to change the return type, and if I don't change it correctly, I'll get a compile error if I'm lucky, or a runtime bug in the worse case. Having to copy and paste changes to two locations and keep them in sync I feel is not good practice. And I can't think of a situation where I'd want an implicit cast on return instead of an explicit cast. Surely there is a way to ask the compiler to deduce this information. What is the point of the compiler keeping it a secret? I thought C++0x was designed so such duplication would not be required.

  Read the article

• Surprise for a programmer [closed]

  - by penelope

  help! my boyfriend's birthday is next month. since he is a programmer, I'd love to make him a cake with the code for "happy birthday" (and perhaps something awesome) written in icing on top. not being a programmer myself, i have no idea where to begin. any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

  Read the article

• error: polymorphic expression with default arguments

  - by 0__

  This following bugs me: trait Foo[ A ] class Bar[ A ]( set: Set[ Foo[ A ]] = Set.empty ) This yields <console>:8: error: polymorphic expression cannot be instantiated to expected type; found : [A]scala.collection.immutable.Set[A] required: Set[Foo[?]] class Bar[ A ]( set: Set[ Foo[ A ]] = Set.empty ) ^ It is quite annoying that I have to repeat the type parameter in Set.empty. Why does the type inference fail with this default argument? The following works: class Bar[ A ]( set: Set[ Foo[ A ]] = { Set.empty: Set[ Foo[ A ]]}) Please note that this has nothing to do with Set in particular: case class Hallo[ A ]() class Bar[ A ]( hallo: Hallo[ A ] = Hallo.apply ) // nope Strangely not only this works: class Bar[ A ]( hallo: Hallo[ A ] = Hallo.apply[ A ]) ...but also this: class Bar[ A ]( hallo: Hallo[ A ] = Hallo() ) // ???

  Read the article

• How does the verbosity of identifiers affect the performance of a programmer?

  - by DR

  I always wondered: Are there any hard facts which would indicate that either shorter or longer identifiers are better? Example: clrscr() opposed to ClearScreen() Short identifiers should be faster to read because there are fewer characters but longer identifiers often better resemble natural language and therefore also should be faster to read. Are there other aspects which suggest either a short or a verbose style? EDIT: Just to clarify: I didn't ask: "What would you do in this case?". I asked for reasons to prefer one over the other, i.e. this is not a poll question. Please, if you can, add some reason on why one would prefer one style over the other.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176  | Next Page >