Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 171/348 | < Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >

  • Question about a possible design pattern...

    - by Aftershock
    I have such a design in my mind.... My aim is to reuse the program with some features included and without some features. What is it called in the literature? class feature1 { void feature1function1(); void feature1function2(); } class feature2 { void feature2function1(); void feature2function2(); } class program: feature1, feature2 { void function1() { feature2function1(); } void function2() { feature1function1(); feature2function1(); } void execute() { function1(); function2(); } }

    Read the article

  • Where to put a piece of code in Ruby on Rails?

    - by yuval
    I have a post controller that has many comments. The post model has a field called has_comments which is a boolean (so I can quickly select from the database only posts that have comments). To create a new comment for a post, I use the create action of my comments controller. After I create the comment I need to update my post's has_comments field and set it to true. I can update this field from the create action of my comments controller, but that doesn't seem right - I feel that I should really be using the post's update action, but I'm not sure if it's right to call it (via send?) from the create action of the comments controller. Where should the code for updating the post be? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • 'goto' usage

    - by Landon
    I've long been under the impression that 'goto' should never be used if possible. While perusing libavcodec (which is written in C) the other day, I noticed multiple uses of it. Is it ever advantageous to use 'goto' in a language that supports loops and functions? If so, why?

    Read the article

  • design decision between array or object save in database

    - by justjoe
    i code some configuration setting. And need those values to be load, everytime my webapp start. yes, it's somekind autoload setting. But, right now, i have to choose between save it as object or array. is there any different between them when we save them in database ? which one is faster or maintainable or other pro and cons thanks

    Read the article

  • Protocol specification in XML

    - by Mathijs
    Is there a way to specify a packet-based protocol in XML, so (de)serialization can happen automatically? The context is as follows. I have a device that communicates through a serial port. It sends and receives a byte stream consisting of 'packets'. A packet is a collection of elementary data types and (sometimes) other packets. Some elements of packets are conditional; their inclusion depends on earlier elements. I have a C# application that communicates with this device. Naturally, I don't want to work on a byte-level throughout my application; I want to separate the protocol from my application code. Therefore I need to translate the byte stream to structures (classes). Currently I have implemented the protocol in C# by defining a class for each packet. These classes define the order and type of elements for each packet. Making class members conditional is difficult, so protocol information ends up in functions. I imagine XML that looks like this (note that my experience designing XML is limited): <packet> <field name="Author" type="int32" /> <field name="Nickname" type="bytes" size="4"> <condition type="range"> <field>Author</field> <min>3</min> <max>6</min> </condition> </field> </packet> .NET has something called a 'binary serializer', but I don't think that's what I'm looking for. Is there a way to separate protocol and code, even if packets 'include' other packets and have conditional elements?

    Read the article

  • Rapid Opening and Closing System.IO.StreamWriter in C#

    - by ccomet
    Suppose you have a file that you are programmatically logging information into with regards to a process. Kinda like your typical debug Console.WriteLine, but due to the nature of the code you're testing, you don't have a console to write onto so you have to write it somewhere like a file. My current program uses System.IO.StreamWriter for this task. My question is about the approach to using the StreamWriter. Is it better to open just one StreamWriter instance, do all of the writes, and close it when the entire process is done? Or is it a better idea to open a new StreamWriter instance to write a line into the file, then immediately close it, and do this for every time something needs to be written in? In the latter approach, this would probably be facilitated by a method that would do just that for a given message, rather than bloating the main process code with excessive amounts of lines. But having a method to aid in that implementation doesn't necessarily make it the better choice. Are there significant advantages to picking one approach or the other? Or are they functionally equivalent, leaving the choice on the shoulders of the programmer?

    Read the article

  • Should I use a modified singleton design pattern that only allows one reference to its instance?

    - by Graham
    Hi, I have a class that would normally just generate factory objects, however this class should only used once throughout the program in once specifix place. What is the best design pattern to use in this instance? I throught that having a modified singleton design which only allows one reference to instance throughout the program would be the correct way to go. So only the first call to getInstance() returns the factory library. Is this a good or bad idea? Have I missed out another fundermental design pattern for solving this problem? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Should you always write code for else cases that "can never happen"?

    - by johnswamps
    Take some code like if (person.IsMale()) { doGuyStuff(); } else { doGirlOtherStuff(); } (Yes, I realize this is bad OO code, it's an example) Should this be written so that to explicitly check if person.isFemale(), and then add a new else that throws an exception? Or maybe you're checking values in an enum, or something like that. You think that no one will add new elements to the enum, but who knows? "Can never happen" sounds like famous last words.

    Read the article

  • Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

    - by mgroves
    I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    Read the article

  • help me to choose between two designs

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • Validation - Data Integrity

    - by Thomas
    A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

    Read the article

  • Preprocessor #define vs. function pointer - best practice?

    - by Dustin
    I recently started a small personal project (RGB value to BGR value conversion program) in C, and I realised that a function that converts from RGB to BGR can not only perform the conversion but also the inversion. Obviously that means I don't really need two functions rgb2bgr and bgr2rgb. However, does it matter whether I use a function pointer instead of a macro? For example: int rgb2bgr (const int rgb); /* * Should I do this because it allows the compiler to issue * appropriate error messages using the proper function name, * not to mention possible debugging benefits? */ int (*bgr2rgb) (const int bgr) = rgb2bgr; /* * Or should I do this since it is merely a convenience * and they're really the same function anyway? */ #define bgr2rgb(bgr) (rgb2bgr (bgr)) I'm not necessarily looking for a change in execution efficiency as it's more of a subjective question out of curiosity. I am well aware of the fact that type safety is neither lost nor gained using either method. Would the function pointer merely be a convenience or are there more practical benefits to be gained of which I am unaware?

    Read the article

  • Arguments against Create or Update

    - by Nix
    Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream instance timing help

    - by rod
    Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

    Read the article

  • Should I start with Trac 0.12 ?

    - by mree
    I'm going to start using Trac for the first time. From what I've gathered, the latest 0.12 is capable of supporting multiple project easily (which is something I will need since I got about 5 projects). However, it seems 0.12 is still in the development (0.12-dev). So, my question is, is it good enough for a newbie in Trac like me to use it? Does anyone has any experience using it ? It will be installed on a Linux server. BTW, I'll only be using the basic functions such as svn browser, wiki, tickets and others.

    Read the article

  • The Wheel Invention - Beneficial For Learning?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, Chris Coyier of css-tricks.com has written a good article titled Regarding Wheel Invention. In a paragraph he says: On the “reinventing” side, you benefit from complete control and learning from the process. And on the very next line he says: On the other side, you benefit from speed, reliability, and familiarity. Also often at odds are time spent and cost. He is right in both statements I think. I really like his first statement. I do actually sometimes re-invent the wheel to learn more and gain complete control over what I am inventing. I wonder why people are so much against that or rather biased. Isn't there the benefit of learning and getting complete control or probably some other benefits too. I would love to see what you have to say about this.

    Read the article

  • where to store temporary data in MVC 2.0 project

    - by StuffHappens
    Hello! I'm starting to learn MVC 2.0 and I'm trying to create a site with a quiz: user is asked a question and given several options of answer. If he chooses the right answer he gets some points, if he doesn't, he looses them. I tried to do this the following way public class HomeController : Controller { private ITaskGenerator taskGenerator = new TaskGenerator(); private string correctAnswer; public ActionResult Index() { var task = taskGenerator .GenerateTask(); ViewData["Task"] = task.Task; ViewData["Options"] = task.Options; correctAnswer= task.CorrectAnswer; return View(); } public ActionResult Answer(string id) { if (id == correctAnswer) return View("Correct") return View("Incorrect"); } } But I have a problem: when user answers the cotroller class is recreated and I loose correct answer. So what is the best place to store correct answer? Should I create a static class for this purpose? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • How to properly dispose of an object

    - by VoodooChild
    Hi Guys, I am experiencing something weird and have a workaround already, but I don't think I understood it well. If I call the Method below numerous times within a class: public void Method() { Foo a = new Foo(); a.Delegate1Handler = ViewSomething(); } So I am reinitializing "a" every time but for some reason a.Delegate1Handler is still around from the previous initialization, and therefore ViewSomething() is called again and again and again.... I feel like I am forgetting something critical here? Foo's guts look like: public delegate void Delegate1(T t); public Delegate1 Delegate1Handler { get; set; }

    Read the article

  • using partials in view helpers

    - by takeshin
    Creating custom Zend View helpers I often end up with something like: // logic here if ($condition) { $output = <<<EOS... } else { $output = <<<EOS... } or using switch. Then to eliminate this, I create setPartial(), getPartial() and htmlize() for using external .phtml's. This is not the best solution, because partials do not support doctype changing. Is there any better solution, than creating abstract class handling this common case? Are there any ready Zend solutions for this case? Separate view helper for each case? And where to put common code?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >