Search Results

Search found 17731 results on 710 pages for 'programming 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 178/710 | < Previous Page | 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185  | Next Page >

  • Best practice for storage and retrieval of error messages.

    - by ferrari fan
    What is a best practice for storing user messages in a configuration file and then retrieving them for certain events throughout an application? I was thinking of having 1 single configuration file with entries such as REQUIRED_FIELD = {0} is a required field INVALID_FORMAT = The format for {0} is {1} etc. and then calling them from a class that would be something like this public class UIMessages { public static final String REQUIRED_FIELD = "REQUIRED_FIELD"; public static final String INVALID_FORMAT = "INVALID_FORMAT"; static { // load configuration file into a "Properties" object } public static String getMessage(String messageKey) { // return properties.getProperty(messageKey); } } Is this the right way to approach this problem or is there some de-facto standard already in place?

    Read the article

  • Checking for empty arrays: count vs empty

    - by Dan McG
    This question on 'How to tell if a PHP array is empty' had me thinking of this question Is there a reason that count should be used instead of empty when determining if an array is empty or not? My personal thought would be if the 2 are equivalent for the case of empty arrays you should use empty because it gives a boolean answer to a boolean question. From the question linked above, it seems that count($var) == 0 is the popular method. To me, while technically correct, makes no sense. E.g. Q: $var, are you empty? A: 7. Hmmm... Is there a reason I should use count == 0 instead or just a matter of personal taste? As pointed out by others in comments for a now deleted answer, count will have performance impacts for large arrays because it will have to count all elements, whereas empty can stop as soon as it knows it isn't empty. So, if they give the same results in this case, but count is potentially inefficient, why would we ever use count($var) == 0?

    Read the article

  • Generic data input form in asp.net mvc application

    - by Diego
    Hello, I have an application that have EF 16 classes that share this information: They all are classes only with a key field and a description. I think it should be a waste if I make a controller with just 1 method just to present a form to fill these classes info, then I was thinking in to make a generic form(with key, description) and dynamically fill the right class through a sort of selection the selected info in any way, any good suggestion or pattern to do that? Where the generic methods should be located.

    Read the article

  • Repository vs Data Access

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys In the context of the n-tier application, is there a difference between what you would consider your data access classes to be and your repositories? I tend to think yes but I just wanted to see what other thought. My thinking is that the job of the repository is just to contain and execute the raw query itself, where as the data access class would create the context, execute the repository (passing in the context), handle mapping the data model to the domain model and return the result back up... What do you guys think? Also do you see any of this changing in a Linq to XML scenario (assuming that you change the context for the relevant XDocument)? Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • Specification: Use cases for CRUD

    - by Mario Ortegón
    I am writing a Product requirements specification. In this document I must describe the ways that the user can interact with the system in a very high level. Several of these operations are "Create-Read-Update-Delete" on some objects. The question is, when writing use cases for these operations, what is the right way to do so? Can I write only one Use Case called "Manage Object x" and then have these operations as included Use Cases? Or do I have to create one use case per operation, per object? The problem I see with the last approach is that I would be writing quite a few pages that I feel do not really contribute to the understanding of the problem. What is the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Recommended textbook for machine-level programming?

    - by Norman Ramsey
    I'm looking at textbooks for an undergraduate course in machine-level programming. If the perfect book existed, this is what it would look like: Uses examples written in C or assembly language, or both. Covers machine-level operations such as two's-complement integer arithmetic, bitwise operations, and floating-point arithmetic. Explains how caches work and how they affect performance. Explains machine instructions or assembly instructions. Bonus if the example assembly language includes x86; triple bonus if it includes x86-64 (aka AMD64). Explains how C values and data structures are represented using hardware registers and memory. Explains how C control structures are translated into assembly language using conditional and unconditional branch instructions. Explains something about procedure calling conventions and how procedure calls are implemented at the machine level. Books I might be interested in would probably have the words "machine organization" or "computer architecture" in the title. Here are some books I'm considering but am not quite happy with: Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective by Randy Bryant and Dave O'Hallaron. This is quite a nice book, but it's a book for a broad, shallow course in systems programming, and it contains a great deal of material my students don't need. Also, it is just out in a second edition, which will make it expensive. Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface by Dave Patterson and John Hennessy. This is also a very nice book, but it contains way more information about how the hardware works than my students need. Also, the exercises look boring. Finally, it has a show-stopping bug: it is based very heavily on MIPS hardware and the use of a MIPS simulator. My students need to learn how to use DDD, and I can't see getting this to work on a simulator. Not to mention that I can't see them cross-compiling their code for the simulator, and so on and so forth. Another flaw is that the book mentions the x86 architecture only to sneer at it. I am entirely sympathetic to this point of view, but news flash! You guys lost! Write Great Code Vol I: Understanding the Machine by Randall Hyde. I haven't evaluated this book as thoroughly as the other two. It has a lot of what I need, but the translation from high-level language to assembler is deferred to Volume Two, which has mixed reviews. My students will be annoyed if I make them buy a two-volume series, even if the price of those two volumes is smaller than the price of other books. I would really welcome other suggestions of books that would help students in a class where they are to learn how C-language data structures and code are translated to machine-level data structures and code and where they learn how to think about performance, with an emphasis on the cache.

    Read the article

  • Good programming website like Stack Overflow?

    - by hhafez
    What other good collaborative programming/software development/engineering websites do you know of? I'm not looking for language or platform specific websites. Nor am I looking for something similar to the format of Stack Overflow. My main criteria is that the community is knowledgeable, helpful active friendly I know the question is open ended/subjective but I'd like to know as many places where I can get the help of my peers. The accepted answer will contain links to your recommended sites have a short description be concise be highly voted by your peers

    Read the article

  • Should I define a single "DataContext" and pass references to it around or define muliple "DataConte

    - by Nate Bross
    I have a Silverlight application that consists of a MainWindow and several classes which update and draw images on the MainWindow. I'm now expanding this to keep track of everything in a database. Without going into specifics, lets say I have a structure like this: MainWindow Drawing-Surface Class1 -- Supports Drawing DataContext + DataServiceCollection<T> w/events Class2 -- Manages "transactions" (add/delete objects from drawing) Class3 Each "Class" is passed a reference to the Drawing Surface so they can interact with it independently. I'm starting to use WCF Data Services in Class1 and its working well; however, the other classes are also going to need access to the WCF Data Services. (Should I define my "DataContext" in MainWindow and pass a reference to each child class?) Class1 will need READ access to the "transactions" data, and Class2 will need READ access to some of the drawing data. So my question is, where does it make the most sense to define my DataContext? Does it make sense to: Define a "global" WCF Data Service "Context" object and pass references to that in all of my subsequent classes? Define an instance of the "Context" for each Class1, Class2, etc Have each method that requires access to data define its own instance of the "Context" and use closures handle the async load/complete events? Would a structure like this make more sense? Is there any danger in keeping an active "DataContext" open for an extended period of time? Typical usecase of this application could range from 1 minute to 40+ minutes. MainWindow Drawing-Surface DataContext Class1 -- Supports Drawing DataServiceCollection<DrawingType> w/events Class2 -- Manages "transactions" (add/delete objects from drawing) DataServiceCollection<TransactionType> w/events Class3 DataServiceCollection<T> w/events

    Read the article

  • Use of (non) qualified names

    - by AProgrammer
    If I want to use the name baz defined in package foo|bar|quz, I've several choices: provide fbq as a short name for foo|bar|quz and use fbq|baz use foo|bar|quz|baz import baz from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz (or an alias given in the import process) import all public symbols from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz For the languages I know, my perception is that the best practice is to use the first two ways (I'll use one or the other depending on the specific package full name and the number of symbols I need from it). I'd use the third only in a language which doesn't provide the first and hunt for supporting tools to write the import statements. And in my opinion the fourth should be reserved to package designed with than import in mind, for instance if all exported symbols start with a prefix or contains the name of the package. My questions: what is in your opinion the best practice for your favorite languages? what would you suggest in a new language? what would you suggest in an old language adding such a feature?

    Read the article

  • SVN Best practice for a "branch" of your main product ?

    - by Steffen
    At my job we develop websites - however now we're going to make a "whitelabelled" version of a site, which basically means it's the same site, however with a different logo and hosted on a different domain. Also it'll have minor graphical differences, but overall the engine is the same. My initial thought for keeping this in SVN, was to just make a branch for it - however I'm not quite certain if this could give me trouble later on. Normally I keep my branches somewhat short lived - mainly used for developing a new feature, without disturbing trunk. We need to be able to merge trunk changes into this "whitelabel" version, which I why I thought about branching it in the first place. So what's the best way to archive this ?

    Read the article

  • How to document object-oriented MATLAB code?

    - by jjkparker
    I'm writing a sizable application using object-oriented MATLAB, and this has gotten me thinking about how to document the code. If this was C, I would use Doxygen. For Java, I'd use JavaDoc. Both have mostly agreed-upon standards for how class and method documentation should look and what it should contain. But what about MATLAB code? The most I've seen in TMW's own classes is a short sentence or two at the top of the class, and I can't find any topics devoted to documenting sizable MATLAB applications. So how do you document your MATLAB classes? Any particular style issues or additional tools?

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • SOAP - Why do I need to query for the values for an update?

    - by Phill Pafford
    I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right? Example Values: fname=phill lname=pafford address=123 main phone:222-555-1212 So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update. Example Update Values: fname=phill lname=pafford address=123 main phone:111-555-1212 I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid repetition when working with primitive types?

    - by I82Much
    I have the need to perform algorithms on various primitive types; the algorithm is essentially the same with the exception of which type the variables are. So for instance, /** * Determine if <code>value</code> is the bitwise OR of elements of <code>validValues</code> array. * For instance, our valid choices are 0001, 0010, and 1000. * We are given a value of 1001. This is valid because it can be made from * ORing together 0001 and 1000. * On the other hand, if we are given a value of 1111, this is invalid because * you cannot turn on the second bit from left by ORing together those 3 * valid values. */ public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { for (long validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { for (int validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } How can I avoid this repetition? I know there's no way to genericize primitive arrays, so my hands seem tied. I have instances of primitive arrays and not boxed arrays of say Number objects, so I do not want to go that route either. I know there are a lot of questions about primitives with respect to arrays, autoboxing, etc., but I haven't seen it formulated in quite this way, and I haven't seen a decisive answer on how to interact with these arrays. I suppose I could do something like: public static<E extends Number> boolean isValid(E value, List<E> numbers) { long theValue = value.longValue(); for (Number validOption : numbers) { theValue &= ~validOption.longValue(); } return theValue != 0; } and then public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } Is that really much better though? Any thoughts in this matter would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Managing aesthetic code changes in git

    - by Ollie Saunders
    I find that I make a lot of small changes to my source code, often things that have almost no functional effect. For example: Refining or correcting comments. Moving function definitions within a class for a more natural reading order. Spacing and lining up some declarations for readability. Collapsing something using multiple lines on to one. Removing an old piece of commented-out code. Correcting some inconsistent whitespace. I guess I have a formidable attention to detail in my code. But the problem is I don't know what to do about these changes and they make it difficult to switch between branches etc. in git. I find myself not knowing whether to commit the minor changes, stash them, or put them in a separate branch of little tweaks and merge that in later. None those options seems ideal. The main problem is that these sort of changes are unpredictable. If I was to commit these there would be so many commits with the message "Minor code aesthetic change.", because, the second I make such a commit I notice another similar issue. What should I do when I make a minor change, a significant change, and then another minor change? I'd like to merge the three minor changes into one commit. It's also annoying seeing files as modified in git status when the change barely warrants my attention. I know about git commit --amend but I also know that's bad practice as it makes my repo inconsistent with remotes.

    Read the article

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    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 | 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185  | Next Page >