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 210/710 | < Previous Page | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >

  • Best practice for avoiding locks on a heavily read table?

    - by Luiggi
    Hi, I have a big database (~4GB), with 2 large tables (~3M records) having ~180K SELECTs/hour, ~2k UPDATEs/hour and ~1k INSERTs+DELETEs/hour. What would be the best practice to guarantee no locks for the reading tasks while inserting/updating/deleting? I was thinking about using a NOLOCK hint, but there is so much discussed about this (is good, is bad, it depends) that I'm a bit lost. I must say I've tried this in a dev environment and I didn't find any problems, but I don't want to put it on production until I get some feedback... Thank you! Luiggi

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use Reflection in Unit testing?

    - by Sebi
    During the last years I always thought that in Java, Reflection is widely used during Unit testing. Since some of the variables/methods which have to be checked are private, it is somehow necessary to read the values of them. I always thought that the Reflection API is also used for this purpose. Last week i had to test some packages and therefore write some JUnit tests. As always i used Reflection to access private fields and methods. But my supervisor who checked the code wasn't really happy with that and told me that the Reflection API wasn't meant to use for such "hacking". Instead he suggested to modifiy the visibility in the production code. Is it really bad practice to use Reflection? I can't really believe that

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Tracking user changes in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Ian Roke
    I have a requirement to track what authenticated users change with regards to the data when logged in. I don't need to track what pages they look at although that could be very useful in future. I have thought about saving the User Guid but that seems very clunky. Are there other methods/best practises?

    Read the article

  • group by country with ActiveRecords in Rails

    - by Adnan
    Hello, I have a table with users: name | country | .. | UK | .. | US | .. | US | .. | UK | .. | FR | .. | FR | .. | UK | .. | UK | .. | DE | .. | DE | .. | UK | .. | CA | . . What is the most efficient way with ActiveRecords to get the list of countries in my view and for each country how many users are from, so: US 123 UK 54 DE 33 . . .

    Read the article

  • Call a non member funcion on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); ~C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Correct approach to validate attributes of an instance of class

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters declaration ? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    Read the article

  • Assignment in conditional operator

    - by DuoSRX
    I've seen a lot this kind of code recently : if ($foo = $bar->getFoo()) { baz($foo); } Is this considered good or bad practice ? For example, Netbeans IDE give a notice if you use this kind of code : Possible accidental assignment, assignments in conditions should be avoided What do you think ?

    Read the article

  • Am i using too much jquery? When i'm crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately i find 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 kind of things? So the real question is: When i'm using too much jquery? How can i understand when i'm crossing the line? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Implement abstract class as a local class? pros and cons

    - by sinec
    Hi, for some reason I'm thinking on implementing interface within a some function(method) as local class. Consider following: class A{ public: virtual void MethodToOverride() = 0; }; A * GetPtrToAImplementation(){ class B : public A { public: B(){} ~B(){} void MethodToOverride() { //do something } }; return static_cast<A *>(new B()); } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { A * aInst = GetPtrToAImplementation(); aInst->MethodToOverride(); delete aInst; return 0; } the reason why I'm doing this are: I'm lazy to implement class (B) in separate files MethodToOverride just delegates call to other class Class B shouldn't be visible to other users no need to worry about deleting aInst since smart pointers are used in real implementation So my question is if I'm doing this right? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • new Integer vs valueOf

    - by LB
    Hi, I was using Sonar to make my code cleaner, and it pointed that I'm using new Integer(1) instead of Integer.valueOf(1). Because it seems that valueOf does not instantiate a new object so is more memory-friendly. How can valueOf not instantiate a new object ? How does it work ? Is this true for all integers ? 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 | 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217  | Next Page >