Search Results

Search found 12287 results on 492 pages for 'column oriented'.

Page 23/492 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

• software architecture (OO design) refresher course

  - by PeterT

  I am lead developer and team lead in a small RAD team. Deadlines are tight and we have to release often, which we do, and this is what keep the business happy. While we (the development team) are trying to maintain the quality of the code (clean and short methods), I can't help but notice that the overall quality of the OO design&architecture is getting worse over the time - the library we are working on is gradually reducing itself to a "bag of functions". Well, we try to use the design patterns, but since we don't really have much time for a design as such we are mostly using the creational ones. I have read Code Complete / Design Patterns (GOF & enterprise) / Progmatic Programmer / and many books from Effective XXX series. Should I re-read them again as I have read them a long time ago and forgotten quite a lot, or there are other / better OO design / software architeture books been published since then which I should definitely read? Any ideas, recommendations on how can I get the situation under control and start improving the architecture. The way I see it - I will start improving the architectural / design quality of software components I am working on and then will start helping other team members once I find what is working for me.

  Read the article

• When following SRP, how should I deal with validating and saving entities?

  - by Kristof Claes

  I've been reading Clean Code and various online articles about SOLID lately, and the more I read about it, the more I feel like I don't know anything. Let's say I'm building a web application using ASP.NET MVC 3. Let's say I have a UsersController with a Create action like this: public class UsersController : Controller { public ActionResult Create(CreateUserViewModel viewModel) { } } In that action method I want to save a user to the database if the data that was entered is valid. Now, according to the Single Responsibility Principle an object should have a single responsibility, and that responsibility should be entirely encapsulated by the class. All its services should be narrowly aligned with that responsibility. Since validation and saving to the database are two separate responsibilities, I guess I should create to separate class to handle them like this: public class UsersController : Controller { private ICreateUserValidator validator; private IUserService service; public UsersController(ICreateUserValidator validator, IUserService service) { this.validator = validator; this.service= service; } public ActionResult Create(CreateUserViewModel viewModel) { ValidationResult result = validator.IsValid(viewModel); if (result.IsValid) { service.CreateUser(viewModel); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } else { foreach (var errorMessage in result.ErrorMessages) { ModelState.AddModelError(String.Empty, errorMessage); } return View(viewModel); } } } That makes some sense to me, but I'm not at all sure that this is the right way to handle things like this. It is for example entirely possible to pass an invalid instance of CreateUserViewModel to the IUserService class. I know I could use the built in DataAnnotations, but what when they aren't enough? Image that my ICreateUserValidator checks the database to see if there already is another user with the same name... Another option is to let the IUserService take care of the validation like this: public class UserService : IUserService { private ICreateUserValidator validator; public UserService(ICreateUserValidator validator) { this.validator = validator; } public ValidationResult CreateUser(CreateUserViewModel viewModel) { var result = validator.IsValid(viewModel); if (result.IsValid) { // Save the user } return result; } } But I feel I'm violating the Single Responsibility Principle here. How should I deal with something like this?

  Read the article

• OOP - Composition, Components and Composites Example?

  - by coder3

  I've been reading a bit about OOP in relation to Composition, Components and Composites. I believe I understand the fundamental principle (not sure). Can some one please provide a code example of a person or car (both have many properties) using Composition, Components and Composites. I think seeing it in code would clear up the confusion I have regarding this pattern. Preferably in Java or PHP - many thanks!

  Read the article

• Questioning the motivation for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

  - by oberlies

  Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So dependency injection may really be an advantage in advanced use cases, but I don't need it for easy construction and testability, do I?

  Read the article

• How to explain OOP to a matlab programmer?

  - by Oak

  I have a lot of friends who come from electrical / physical / mechanical engineering background, and are curious about what is "OOP" all about. They all know Matlab quite well, so they do have basic programming background; but they have a very hard time grasping a complex type system which can benefit from the concepts OOP introduces. Can anyone propose a way I can try to explain it to them? I'm just not familiar with Matlab myself, so I'm having troubles finding parallels. I think using simple examples like shapes or animals is a bit too abstract for those engineers. So far I've tried using a Matrix interface vs array-based / sparse / whatever implementations, but that didn't work so well, probably because different matrix types are already well-supported in Matlab.

  Read the article

• DDD and filtering

  - by tikhop

  I am developing an app in ddd maner. So I have a complex domain model. Suppose I have a Fare object and Airline. Each Airline should contain several or much more Fares. My UI should represent Model (only small part of complex model) as a list of Airline, when the user select the Airline, I must show the list of Fares. User can filtering the Fares (by travel time, cost, etc.). What is the appropriate place for filtering Fares and Airlines? I am assuming that I should do it in ViewModel. Like: My domain model has wrapped with Service Layer - UI works with ViewModel - ViewModel obtain data from Service Layer filtering it and create DTO objects for UI. Or I'm wrong?

  Read the article

• OOP concept: is it possible to update the class of an instantiated object?

  - by Federico

  I am trying to write a simple program that should allow a user to save and display sets of heterogeneous, but somehow related data. For clarity sake, I will use a representative example of vehicles. The program flow is like this: The program creates a Garage object, which is basically a class that can contain a list of vehicles objects Then the users creates Vehicles objects, these Vehicles each have a property, lets say License Plate Nr. Once created, the Vehicle object get added to a list within the Garage object --Later on--, the user can specify that a given Vehicle object is in fact a Car object or a Truck object (thus giving access to some specific attributes such as Number of seats for the Car, or Cargo weight for the truck) At first sight, this might look like an OOP textbook question involving a base class and inheritance, but the problem is more subtle because at the object creation time (and until the user decides to give more info), the computer doesn't know the exact Vehicle type. Hence my question: how would you proceed to implement this program flow? Is OOP the way to go? Just to give an initial answer, here is what I've came up until now. There is only one Vehicle class and the various properties/values are handled by the main program (not the class) through a dictionary. However, I'm pretty sure that there must be a more elegant solution (I'm developing using VB.net): Public Class Garage Public GarageAdress As String Private _ListGarageVehicles As New List(Of Vehicles) Public Sub AddVehicle(Vehicle As Vehicles) _ListGarageVehicles.Add(Vehicle) End Sub End Class Public Class Vehicles Public LicensePlateNumber As String Public Enum VehicleTypes Generic = 0 Car = 1 Truck = 2 End Enum Public VehicleType As VehicleTypes Public DictVehicleProperties As New Dictionary(Of String, String) End Class NOTE that in the example above the public/private modifiers do not necessarily reflect the original code

  Read the article

• Examples of Liskov Substitution

  - by james lewis

  I'm facilitating a session next week on the Liskov Substitution Principle and I was wondering if anyone had any examples of violations 'from the trenches'? I'm looking for something other than uncle Bob's rectangle - square problem and the persistent set problem he talks about in A-PPP (although that is a great example). So far I'm using the example of a (very simple) List and an IndexedList as the 'correct' use of inheritance. And the addition of a Set to this hierarchy as a violation (as a Set is distinct; strengthening the pre condition of the Add method). I've also taken this great example and it's solution from this question Both those examples are great but I'm looking for something more subtle and harder to spot. So far I've come up with nothing so if you've got a great, subtle example post it up. Also, any metaphors you've come across that helped you understand LSP would be really useful too.

  Read the article

• what is message passing in OO?

  - by Tom

  I've been studying OO programming, primarily in C++, C# and Java. I thought I had a good grasp on it with my understanding of encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism (as well as reading a lot of questions on this site). One thing that seems to popup up here and there is the concept of "message passing". Apparently, this is something that is not used whilst OO programming in today's mainstream languages, but is supported by Smalltalk. My questions are: What is message passing? (Can someone give a practical example?) Is there any support for this "message passing" in C++, C# or Java?

  Read the article

• Why should ViewModel route actions to Controller when using the MVCVM pattern?

  - by Lea Hayes

  When reading examples across the Internet (including the MSDN reference) I have found that code examples are all doing the following type of thing: public class FooViewModel : BaseViewModel { public FooViewModel(FooController controller) { Controller = controller; } protected FooController Controller { get; private set; } public void PerformSuperAction() { // This just routes action to controller... Controller.SuperAction(); } ... } and then for the view: public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.PerformSuperAction(); } } Why do we not just do the following? public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.Controller.SuperAction(); // or, even just use a shortcut property: Controller.SuperAction(); } }

  Read the article

• How did you get good practices for your OOP designs?

  - by Darf Zon

  I realized I have a difficulty creating OOP designs. I spent many time deciding if this property is correctly set it to X class. For example, this is a post which has a few days: http://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/8041/how-to-improve-my-factory-design I'm not convinced of my code. So I want to improve my designs, take less time creating it. How did you learn creating good designs? Some books that you can recommend me?

  Read the article

• What is the difference between Java 6 and PHP 5.4? [closed]

  - by Mashael

  First of all, let me explain the matter. I'm in a class where we learn Java 6 OOP fundamentals. However, my goal is to learn PHP (the last version) next. So, my question: Is there a big difference between PHP and Java 6 in OOP concepts? Meaning that after I finish the OOP class in Java will I find a lot of things that need to be learned in PHP regarding OOP? Update: *My goal of learning PHP next is to build dynamic sites* (I'm not sure of other options) and to follow OOP.

  Read the article

• Why is my class worse than the hierarchy of classes in the book (beginner OOP)?

  - by aditya menon

  I am reading this book. The author is trying to model a lesson in a college. The goal is to output the Lesson Type (Lecture or Seminar), and the Charges for the lesson depending on whether it is a hourly or fixed price lesson. So the output should be: lesson charge 20. Charge type: hourly rate. lesson type seminar. lesson charge 30. Charge type: fixed rate. lesson type lecture. When the input is as follows: $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); I wrote this: class Lesson { private $chargeType; private $duration; private $lessonType; public function __construct($chargeType, $duration, $lessonType) { $this->chargeType = $chargeType; $this->duration = $duration; $this->lessonType = $lessonType; } public function getChargeType() { return $this->getChargeType; } public function getLessonType() { return $this->getLessonType; } public function cost() { if($this->chargeType == 'fixed rate') { return "30"; } else { return $this->duration * 5; } } } $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); foreach($lessons as $lesson) { print "lesson charge {$lesson->cost()}."; print " Charge type: {$lesson->getChargeType()}."; print " lesson type {$lesson->getLessonType()}."; print "<br />"; } But according to the book, I am wrong (I am pretty sure I am, too). The author gave a large hierarchy of classes as the solution instead. In a previous chapter, the author stated the following 'four signposts' as the time when I should consider changing my class structure: Code Duplication The Class Who Knew Too Much About His Context The Jack of All Trades - Classes that try to do many things Conditional Statements The only problem I can see is Conditional Statements, and that too in a vague manner - so why refactor this? What problems do you think might arise in the future that I have not foreseen?

  Read the article

• Should library classes be wrapped before using them in unit testing?

  - by Songo

  I'm doing unit testing and in one of my classes I need to send a mail from one of the methods, so using constructor injection I inject an instance of Zend_Mail class which is in Zend framework. Example: class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Zend_Mail $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } function toBeTestedFunction(){ //Some code $this->mail->setTo('some value'); $this->mail->setSubject('some value'); $this->mail->setBody('some value'); $this->mail->send(); //Some } } However, Unit testing demands that I test one component at a time, so I need to mock the Zend_Mail class. In addition I'm violating the Dependency Inversion principle as my Logger class now depends on concretion not abstraction. Does that mean that I can never use a library class directly and must always wrap it in a class of my own? Example: interface Mailer{ public function setTo($to); public function setSubject($subject); public function setBody($body); public function send(); } class MyMailer implements Mailer{ private $mailer; function __construct(){ $this->mail=new Zend_Mail; //The class isn't injected this time } function setTo($to){ $this->mailer->setTo($to); } //implement the rest of the interface functions similarly } And now my Logger class can be happy :D class Logger{ private $mailer; function __construct(Mailer $mail){ $this->mail=$mail; } //rest of the code unchanged } Questions: Although I solved the mocking problem by introducing an interface, I have created a totally new class Mailer that now needs to be unit tested although it only wraps Zend_Mail which is already unit tested by the Zend team. Is there a better approach to all this? Zend_Mail's send() function could actually have a Zend_Transport object when called (i.e. public function send($transport = null)). Does this make the idea of a wrapper class more appealing? The code is in PHP, but answers doesn't have to be. This is more of a design issue than a language specific feature

  Read the article

• Architectural Composition Languages

  - by C. Lawrence Wenham

  Recently stumbled upon this paper (PDF) talking about ACLs, or Architectural Composition Languages. They're a fusion of two earlier lines of research: Architectural Definition Languages (such as UML) and Object Composition Languages (such as XAML, WWF, or scripting languages). The goal of an ACL is to have a high-level description of a program's architecture which can also be compiled into a runnable program. The high-level description assists automated analysis, while the 'executability' means changes can be tested immediately. You would still author the components of the program in a conventional programming language (C, Java, Python, etc), but they would be composed into a complete program by the ACL. One of the expected benefits is that a program can be ported to a different platform by swapping in "similar but different" components. I've been hankering for something like this for a long time (see this answer I gave on a StackOverflow question a few years ago). The paper mentions that the researchers were working on a language called ACL/1 that initially targeted Java, but would be ported to support .Net as well. However, I can't find any more mention of ACL/1 anywhere. Has there been any more work done on this? Are there any other implementations of the ACL concept that are available for use or experimentation?

  Read the article

• Basis of definitions

  - by Yttrill

  Let us suppose we have a set of functions which characterise something: in the OO world methods characterising a type. In mathematics these are propositions and we have two kinds: axioms and lemmas. Axioms are assumptions, lemmas are easily derived from them. In C++ axioms are pure virtual functions. Here's the problem: there's more than one way to axiomatise a system. Given a set of propositions or methods, a subset of the propositions which is necessary and sufficient to derive all the others is called a basis. So too, for methods or functions, we have a desired set which must be defined, and typically every one has one or more definitions in terms of the others, and we require the programmer to provide instance definitions which are sufficient to allow all the others to be defined, and, if there is an overspecification, then it is consistent. Let me give an example (in Felix, Haskell code would be similar): class Eq[t] { virtual fun ==(x:t,y:t):bool => eq(x,y); virtual fun eq(x:t, y:t)=> x == y; virtual fun != (x:t,y:t):bool => not (x == y); axiom reflex(x:t): x == x; axiom sym(x:t, y:t): (x == y) == (y == x); axiom trans(x:t, y:t, z:t): implies(x == y and y == z, x == z); } Here it is clear: the programmer must define either == or eq or both. If both are defined, the definitions must be equivalent. Failing to define one doesn't cause a compiler error, it causes an infinite loop at run time. Defining both inequivalently doesn't cause an error either, it is just inconsistent. Note the axioms specified constrain the semantics of any definition. Given a definition of == either directly or via a definition of eq, then != is defined automatically, although the programmer might replace the default with something more efficient, clearly such an overspecification has to be consistent. Please note, == could also be defined in terms of !=, but we didn't do that. A characterisation of a partial or total order is more complex. It is much more demanding since there is a combinatorial explosion of possible bases. There is an reason to desire overspecification: performance. There also another reason: choice and convenience. So here, there are several questions: one is how to check semantics are obeyed and I am not looking for an answer here (way too hard!). The other question is: How can we specify, and check, that an instance provides at least a basis? And a much harder question: how can we provide several default definitions which depend on the basis chosen?

  Read the article

• Formal definition for term "pure OO language"?

  - by Yauhen Yakimovich

  I can't think of a better place among SO siblings to pose such a question. Originally I wanted to ask "Is python a pure OO language?" but considering troubles and some sort of discomfort people experience while trying to define the term I decided to start with obtaining a clear definition for the term itself. It would be rather fair to start with correspondence by Dr. Alan Kay, who has coined the term (note the inspiration in biological analogy to cells or other living objects). There are following ways to approach the task: Give a comparative analysis by listing programming languages that exhibits certain properties unique and sufficient to define the term (although Smalltalk and Java are passing examples but IMO this way seems neither really complete or nor fruitful) Give a formal definition (or close to it, e.g. in more academic or mathematical style). Give a philosophical definition that would totally rely on semantical context of concrete language or a priori programming experience (there must be some chance of successful explanation by the community). My current version: "If a certain programing (formal) language that can (grammatically) differentiate between operations and operands as well as infer about the type of each operand whether this type is an object (in sense of OOP) or not then we call such a language an OO-language as long as there is at least one type in this language which is an object. Finally, if all types of the language are also objects we define such language to be pure OO-language." Would appreciate any possible improvement of it. As you can see I just made the definition dependent on the term "object" (often fully referenced as class of objects).

  Read the article

• Is there really Object-relational impedance mismatch?

  - by user52763

  It is always stated that it is hard to store applications objects in relational databases - the object-relational impedance mismatch - and that is why Document databases are better. However, is there really an impedance mismatch? And object has a key (albeit it may be hidden away by the runtime as a pointer to memory), a set of values, and foreign keys to other objects. Objects are as much made up of tables as it is a document. Neither really fit. I can see a use for databases to model the data into specific shapes for scenarios in the application - e.g. to speed up database lookup and avoid joins, etc., but won't it be better to keep the data as normalized as possible at the core, and transform as required?

  Read the article

• Start Time & Calculated Column Wonkiness in a SharePoint Event Calendar

  - by _zekeMouseOver

  I was creating some custom rollups on some of our event calendars and came across a very odd bug when trying to grab only the date component of the built-in Start Time field. One's first inclination will be to create a calculated column and give it the formula... =[Start Time]... and then assign its output type to be "Date Only." This works well until a user adds an All Day Event. For reasons unexplainable, the All Day Event flag causes your =[Start Time] to display the date minus one day. Here is an example of this in action:  Start Date and Time, Duration, Start Date Value and Start Day are all calculated fields. Notice how the Start Date and Time (=[Start Time]) is reporting 6:00PM of the previous day. The Start Date Value (=[Start Time] - Output Type: Number) confirms this (.75 = 6:00 PM.) Curiously enough, the Duration (=[End Time]-[Start Time]) is properly reporting the duration between 12:00AM and 11:59PM. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it's somehow bound to the regional settings on the site, but I'm not interested in changing a global site setting for the sake of one calculated field.With this information at our disposal, our calculated column to display the date part of the start date needs to be modified to add one day to the [Start Time] field if an All Day Event is selected. To determine this, we use the Duration above to assume the item is an all-day event and change our formula to be:=IF(TEXT(([End Time]-[Start Time])-TRUNC(([End Time]-[Start Time]),0),"0.000000000")="0.999305556",[Start Time] + 1, [Start Time])This will work, but what happens when the user de-selects the "All Day Event" checkbox? The duration stays the same, but all other values begin reporting the correct time: Since our formula above is strictly based on an expected duration, it will add one to the correct date, causing the date 5/11/2010 to appear. Notice though that the raw value of the start time (in this case) is a non-fractional number (40,308) whereas the all-day event was being represented as 6:00 PM (.75) of the previous day. We can use this to add one more nested branch of logic to our calculation:=IF(TEXT(([End Time]-[Start Time])-TRUNC(([End Time]-[Start Time]),0),"0.000000000")="0.999305556",IF([Start Time]=ROUND([Start Time],0),[Start Time],[Start Time]+1),[Start Time]) I feel somewhat... dirty about having to resort to this kind of calculation in what SHOULD have been a simple =[Start Time] to extract the date part of the Start Time field, but there you have it. Make sure to shower extra longer after having used it.

  Read the article

• Nested Classes: A useful tool or an encapsulation violation?

  - by Bryan Harrington

  So I'm still on the fence as to whether or not I should be using these or not. I feel its an extreme violation of encapsulation, however I find that I am able to achieve some degree of encapsulation while gaining more flexibility in my code. Previous Java/Swing projects I had used nested classes to some degree, However now I have moved into other projects in C# and I am avoid their use. How do you feel about nested classes?

  Read the article

• Code Smell: Inheritance Abuse

  - by dsimcha

  It's been generally accepted in the OO community that one should "favor composition over inheritance". On the other hand, inheritance does provide both polymorphism and a straightforward, terse way of delegating everything to a base class unless explicitly overridden and is therefore extremely convenient and useful. Delegation can often (though not always) be verbose and brittle. The most obvious and IMHO surest sign of inheritance abuse is violation of the Liskov Substitution Principle. What are some other signs that inheritance is The Wrong Tool for the Job even if it seems convenient?

  Read the article

• Functional programming readability

  - by Jimmy Hoffa

  I'm curious about this because I recall before learning any functional languages, I thought them all horribly, awfully, terribly unreadable. Now that I know Haskell and f#, I find it takes a little longer to read less code, but that little code does far more than an equivalent amount would in an imperative language, so it feels like a net gain and I'm not extremely practiced in functional. Here's my question, I constantly hear from OOP folks that functional style is terribly unreadable. I'm curious if this is the case and I'm deluding myself, or if they took the time to learn a functional language, the whole style would no longer be more unreadable than OOP? Has anybody seen any evidence or got any anecdotes where they saw this go one way or another with frequency enough to possibly say? If writing functionally really is of lower readability than I don't want to keep using it, but I really don't know if that's the case or not..

  Read the article

• How does a search functionality fit in DDD with CQRS?

  - by Songo

  In Vaughn Vernon's book Implementing domain driven design and the accompanying sample application I found that he implemented a CQRS approach to the iddd_collaboration bounded context. He presents the following classes in the application service layer: CalendarApplicationService.java CalendarEntryApplicationService.java CalendarEntryQueryService.java CalendarQueryService.java I'm interested to know if an application will have a search page that feature numerous drop downs and check boxes with a smart text box to match different search patterns; How will you structure all that search logic? In a command service or a query service? Taking a look at the CalendarQueryService.java I can see that it has 2 methods for a huge query, but no logic at all to mix and match any search filters for example. I've heard that the application layer shouldn't have any business logic, so where will I construct my dynamic query? or maybe just clutter everything in the Query service?

  Read the article

• C# vector class - Interpolation design decision

  - by Benjamin

  Currently I'm working on a vector class in C# and now I'm coming to the point, where I've to figure out, how i want to implement the functions for interpolation between two vectors. At first I came up with implementing the functions directly into the vector class... public class Vector3D { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D vector1, Vector3D vector2, double factor) { ... } public Vector3D LinearInterpolate(Vector3D other, double factor { ... } } (I always offer both: a static method with two vectors as parameters and one non-static, with only one vector as parameter) ...but then I got the idea to use extension methods (defined in a seperate class called "Interpolation" for example), since interpolation isn't really a thing only available for vectors. So this could be another solution: public class Vector3D { ... } public static class Interpolation { public static Vector3D LinearInterpolate(this Vector3D vector, Vector3D other, double factor) { ... } } So here an example how you'd use the different possibilities: { var vec1 = new Vector3D(5, 3, 1); var vec2 = new Vector3D(4, 2, 0); Vector3D vec3; vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //1 vec3 = Vector3D.LinearInterpolate(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //2 //or with extension-methods vec3 = vec1.LinearInterpolate(vec2, 0.5); //3 (same as 1) vec3 = Interpolation.LinearInterpolation(vec1, vec2, 0.5); //4 } So I really don't know which design is better. Also I don't know if there's an ultimate rule for things like this or if it's just about what someone personally prefers. But I really would like to hear your opinions, what's better (and if possible why ).

  Read the article

• How to drastically improve code coverage?

  - by Peter Kofler

  I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >