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 180/348 | < Previous Page | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >

  • Boost shared_ptr use_count function

    - by photo_tom
    My application problem is the following - I have a large structure foo. Because these are large and for memory management reasons, we do not wish to delete them when processing on the data is complete. We are storing them in std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<foo>>. My question is related to knowing when all processing is complete. First decision is that we do not want any of the other application code to mark a complete flag in the structure because there are multiple execution paths in the program and we cannot predict which one is the last. So in our implementation, once processing is complete, we delete all copies of boost::shared_ptr<foo>> except for the one in the vector. This will drop the reference counter in the shared_ptr to 1. Is it practical to use shared_ptr.use_count() to see if it is equal to 1 to know when all other parts of my app are done with the data. One additional reason I'm asking the question is that the boost documentation on the shared pointer shared_ptr recommends not using "use_count" for production code.

    Read the article

  • Generating new tasks in a foreach loop

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I know from the codeing guidlines that I have read you should not do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); as it will write 5 5's, I understand that and I think i understand why it is happening. I know the solution is just to do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { int localI = i; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(localI)); } Console.ReadLine(); However is something like this ok to do? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; currentTask.Start(); foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { task.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; } } or do i need to do this? Task currentTask = myFirstTask; foreach (Task task in _TaskList) { Task localTask = task; currentTask.ContinueWith((antecendent) => { if(antecendent.IsCompleated) { localTask.Start(); } else //do error handling; }); currentTask = task; }

    Read the article

  • More swing design & actions

    - by takoi
    Im pretty new to gui programming so i've been reading through every post on this site about swing and design. Whats been answered over and over again is that one should have a class which handles all the action. Like this: (GUI being some JFrame) Now, this works great for one-way actions, like OpenDialog. But the actions for buttons in DialogA and B will have to have access to all the components (there will be many) in its dialog, and the controller. This is where im stuck. The only sane way i can see is to put it in DialogA/B but i would then need to pass the controller all the way down, through classes that dont even need it, and it'll get all spaghetti. Really dont want that. Someone must have encountered this problem before. So where should i put this Action? Or should i just drop the whole design?

    Read the article

  • Exception handling pattern

    - by treefrog
    It is a common pattern I see where the error codes associated with an exception are stored as Static final ints. when the exception is created to be thrown, it is constructed with one of these codes along with an error message. This results in the method that is going to catch it having to look at the code and then decide on a course of action. The alternative seems to be- declare a class for EVERY exception error case Is there a middle ground ? what is the recommended method ?

    Read the article

  • Global State and Singletons Dependency injection

    - by Manu
    this is a problem i face lot of times when i am designing a new app i'll use a sample problem to explain this think i am writing simple game.so i want to hold a list of players. i have few options.. 1.use a static field in some class private static ArrayList<Player> players = new ArrayList<Integer>(); public Player getPlayer(int i){ return players.get(i); } but this a global state 2.or i can use a singleton class PlayerList{ private PlayerList instance; private PlayerList(){...} public PlayerList getInstance() { if(instance==null){ ... } return instance; } } but this is bad because it's a singleton 3.Dependency injection class Game { private PlayerList playerList; public Game(PlayerList list) { this.list = list; } public PlayerList getPlayerList() { return playerList; } } this seems good but it's not, if any object outside Game need to look at PlayerList (which is the usual case) i have to use one of the above methods to make the Game class available globally. so I just add another layer to the problem. didn't actually solve anything. what is the optimum solution ? (currently i use Singleton approach)

    Read the article

  • Efficiently store last X items in an MySQL Database

    - by Saif Bechan
    I want to store the last 3 items in an MySQL database in an efficient way. So when the 4th item is stored the first should be deleted. The way I do this not is first run a query getting the items. Than check what I should do then insert/delete. There has to be a better way to do this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • does anyone see any issues with this thread pattern?

    - by prmatta
    Here is a simple thread pattern that I use when writing a class that needs just one thread, and needs to a specific task. The usual requirements for such a class are that it should be startable, stopable and restartable. Does anyone see any issues with this pattern that I use? public class MyThread implements Runnable { private boolean _exit = false; private Thread _thread = null; public void start () { if (_thread == null) { _thread = new Thread(this, "MyThread"); _thread.start(); } } public void run () { while (_exit) { //do something } } public void stop () { _exit = true; if (_thread != null) { _thread.interrupt(); _thread = null; } } } I am looking for comments around if I am missing something, or if there is a better way to write this.

    Read the article

  • Programming DataEntry&Forms: Population of Official Common Data Lists

    - by rlb.usa
    As a programmer of data-entry forms of all kinds, I often find myself making fields for things like Country and State. Consider: Perhaps a list the 50 United States names is an easy thing to find (does one include DC?) , but the countries are not. Nearly every site you find has a differing list with all of the political goings on over the years, and they become outdated quickly. What's the best practice regarding population of these kinds of lists? Is there an official list somewhere that one uses to populate these kinds of formal/official fields? Where do you get this data from, when it's not exactly specified in the specs?

    Read the article

  • SQL - when should you use "with (nolock)"

    - by Andy White
    Can someone explain the implications of using "with (nolock)" on queries, when you should/shouldn't use it? For example, if you have a banking application with high transaction rates and a lot of data in certain tables, in what types of queries would nolock be okay? Are there cases when you should always use it/never use it?

    Read the article

  • Problem understanding Inheritance

    - by dhruvbird
    I've been racking my brains over inheritance for a while now, but am still not completely able to get around it. For example, the other day I was thinking about relating an Infallible Human and a Fallible Human. Let's first define the two: Infallible Human: A human that can never make a mistake. It's do_task() method will never throw an exception Fallible Human: A human that will occasionally make a mistakes. It's do_task() method may occasionally throw a ErrorProcessingRequest Exception The question was: IS an infallible human A fallible human OR IS a fallible human AN infallible human? The very nice answer I received was in the form of a question (I love these since it gives me rules to answer future questions I may have). "Can you pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected OR can you pass a fallible human where an infallible human is expected?" It seems apparent that you can pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected, but not the other way around. I guess that answered my question. However, it still feels funny saying "An infallible human is a fallible human". Does anyone else feel queasy when they say it? It almost feels as if speaking out inheritance trees is like reading out statements from propositional calculus in plain English (the if/then implication connectives don't mean the same as that in spoken English). Does anyone else feel the same?

    Read the article

  • How to restrict user from modifying data in mysql data base?

    - by Paul
    We need to deploy application(developed by Java) WAR file in client place which make use of MySql 5.0. But we would like to restrict the user from modifying any data in the database. Is there any way to protect data. The client can make use of the application but they should not be able to change any value in database. How to do that?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to violate the principle that collection properties should be readonly for performance?

    - by uriDium
    I used FxCop to analyze some code I had written. I had exposed a collection via a setter. I understand why this is not good. Changing the backing store when I don't expect it is a very bad idea. Here is my problem though. I retrieve a list of business objects from a Data Access Object. I then need to add that collection to another business class and I was doing it with the setter method. The reason I did this was that it is going to be faster to make an assignment than to insert hundreds of thousands of objects one at a time to the collection again via another addElement method. Is it okay to have a getter for a collection in some scenarios? I though of rather having a constructor which takes a collection? I thought maybe I could pass the object in to the Dao and let the Dao populate it directly? Are there any other better ideas?

    Read the article

  • Will this be garbage collected in JVM?

    - by stjowa
    I am running the following code every two minutes via a Timer: object = new Object(this); Potentially, this is a lot of objects being created and a lot of objects being overwritten. Do the overwritten objects get garbage collected, even with a reference to itself being used in the newly created object? I am using JDK 1.6.0_13. Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Decorator Design Pattern Use With Service Objects (wSingleton)

    - by Dustin
    I'm working on a project where I need to add some functionality to a service object and using a decorator to add it in seems like a good fit. However, I've only ever used decorators with simple beans, never on a singleton like a service object. Has anyone ever done this before and what are the pros and cons? In this case I don't think creating a subclass will work so a decorator seems to be a good fit. What are your thoughts on doing this?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Using Is/As Operator

    - by Swim
    I have factory that looks something like the following snippet. Foo is a wrapper class for Bar and in most cases (but not all), there is a 1:1 mapping. As a rule, Bar cannot know anything about Foo, yet Foo takes an instance of Bar. Is there a better/cleaner approach to doing this? public Foo Make( Bar obj ) { if( obj is Bar1 ) return new Foo1( obj as Bar1 ); if( obj is Bar2 ) return new Foo2( obj as Bar2 ); if( obj is Bar3 ) return new Foo3( obj as Bar3 ); if( obj is Bar4 ) return new Foo3( obj as Bar4 ); // same wrapper as Bar3 throw new ArgumentException(); } At first glance, this question might look like a duplicate (maybe it is), but I haven't seen one exactly like it. Here is one that is close, but not quite: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/242097/factory-based-on-typeof-or-is-a

    Read the article

  • Need help in sorting the programming buzz-words

    - by cwap
    How do you sort out the good buzz from the bad buzz? - I really need your help here :) I see a lot of buzz-words nowadays, both here on SO and in school. For example, we had a teacher who everyone respected, who said "be careful about gold-plating and death-by-interfacing". Now, everyone and their mama cries whenever I'm creating an interface.. Another example would be here on SO where lately "premature optimization is the root of all evil", so everytime someone asks a perfomance question, he'll get that sentence thrown in his face. A few months ago I remember it was all about NHibernate in here, etc., etc... These things comes and goes, but only the good buzz stays. Now, how do you seperate the good from the bad? By reading blogs from respected persons? By trying to come to a conclusion on your own, and then try to convince others that you're right? By simply ignoring it?

    Read the article

  • Should the program logic reside inside the gui object class or be external to the class?

    - by hd112
    I have a question about how to structure code in relation to GUI objects. Suppose I have a dialog that has a list control that has a bunch of names obtained from a database. The user can edit the names. Does the logic reside inside that dialog class or should it be from the outside. To illustrate what I mean, here’s some pseudo code showing the structure of the code when the logic is handled outside the dialog class: NamesDialog : wxDialog { Private: ..stuff.. Public: ... SetNames(wxStringArray names); wxStringArray GetNames(); ..stuff.. } So the user of the class would do something like: wxStringArray names = DatabaseManager::Get()->GetNames(); names.Sort(); NamesDialogObject.SetNames(names); NamesDialogObject.ShowModal(); wxStringArray modified_names = NamesDialogObject.GetNames(); AddToDatabase(modified_names); //or something like this. On the other hand, the database logic can reside inside the NamesDialog class itself. In the show method I can query the database for the names and as the user interacts with the controls (list control in this case), the database can be updated from the event handlers. As a result the NamesDialog class only has the Show() method as there is no need to use SetNames or GetNames() etc. Which method is generally preferred? I don’t have much work experience so I’m not sure which is the proper way to handle it. Sometimes it's easier to handle everything in the class but getting access to objects it interacts with can be challenging. Generally can do it by having the relevant objects be singletons like the database manager in the above example.

    Read the article

  • My User control belonging to which Design Pattern??

    - by prashant
    Hello, I am creating a reusable component in C#.net. For that i have started a Control Library project and added a Control. Class MyControl : Control{} My user control just displays some images which will be used in many Windows Applications. Can you please tell me which design pattern i am using here. I am unable to decide which pattern they belongs. Thanks

    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 | 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187  | Next Page >