Search Results

Search found 14074 results on 563 pages for 'programmers'.

Page 244/563 | < Previous Page | 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251  | Next Page >

  • Switch or a Dictionary when assigning to new object

    - by KChaloux
    Recently, I've come to prefer mapping 1-1 relationships using Dictionaries instead of Switch statements. I find it to be a little faster to write and easier to mentally process. Unfortunately, when mapping to a new instance of an object, I don't want to define it like this: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, IBigObject>() { { 0, new Foo() }, // Creates an instance of Foo { 1, new Bar() }, // Creates an instance of Bar { 2, new Baz() } // Creates an instance of Baz } var quux = fooDict[0]; // quux references Foo Given that construct, I've wasted CPU cycles and memory creating 3 objects, doing whatever their constructors might contain, and only ended up using one of them. I also believe that mapping other objects to fooDict[0] in this case will cause them to reference the same thing, rather than creating a new instance of Foo as intended. A solution would be to use a lambda instead: var fooDict = new Dictionary<int, Func<IBigObject>>() { { 0, () => new Foo() }, // Returns a new instance of Foo when invoked { 1, () => new Bar() }, // Ditto Bar { 2, () => new Baz() } // Ditto Baz } var quux = fooDict[0](); // equivalent to saying 'var quux = new Foo();' Is this getting to a point where it's too confusing? It's easy to miss that () on the end. Or is mapping to a function/expression a fairly common practice? The alternative would be to use a switch: IBigObject quux; switch(someInt) { case 0: quux = new Foo(); break; case 1: quux = new Bar(); break; case 2: quux = new Baz(); break; } Which invocation is more acceptable? Dictionary, for faster lookups and fewer keywords (case and break) Switch: More commonly found in code, doesn't require the use of a Func< object for indirection.

    Read the article

  • Making dummy applications while not involved in LIVE work [closed]

    - by Ratan Sharma
    I know this is subjective but I am looking for some real time helpful points/advice here, which will be helpful for some to get motivated. In our company so many people are on bench(not assigned with real time work) and they do not want to experiment things by their own. What would be a good motivation for them to keep their learning spirit? I personally feel that one can learn and give more effort in live client work than regular practicing things and making dummies. Am I right here or it is just my thinking only?

    Read the article

  • Building non (jsp/freemarker) template based website [on hold]

    - by Ismail Marmoush
    If my web app is supposed to work in one page, something like asana.com, and I wanted to make the whole website free of templates, meaning I would serve data and make js/mobile app call them, or even let other developers create new interfaces for it. So is it acceptable to have such a design for such a problem ? or you think I would eventually have use jsps/freemarker for a certain case. I found something when I started asking the right questions, here is it wiki: Single Page Application

    Read the article

  • How do I cleanly design a central render/animation loop?

    - by mtoast
    I'm learning some graphics programming, and am in the midst of my first such project of any substance. But, I am really struggling at the moment with how to architect it cleanly. Let me explain. To display complicated graphics in my current language of choice (JavaScript -- have you heard of it?), you have to draw graphical content onto a <canvas> element. And to do animation, you must clear the <canvas> after every frame (unless you want previous graphics to remain). Thus, most canvas-related JavaScript demos I've seen have a function like this: function render() { clearCanvas(); // draw stuff here requestAnimationFrame(render); } render, as you may surmise, encapsulates the drawing of a single frame. What a single frame contains at a specific point in time, well... that is determined by the program state. So, in order for my program to do its thing, I just need to look at the state, and decide what to render. Right? Right. But that is more complicated than it seems. My program is called "Critter Clicker". In my program, you see several cute critters bouncing around the screen. Clicking on one of them agitates it, making it bounce around even more. There is also a start screen, which says "Click to start!" prior to the critters being displayed. Here are a few of the objects I'm working with in my program: StartScreenView // represents the start screen CritterTubView // represents the area in which the critters live CritterList // a collection of all the critters Critter // a single critter model CritterView // view of a single critter Nothing too egregious with this, I think. Yet, when I set out to flesh out my render function, I get stuck, because everything I write seems utterly ugly and reminiscent of a certain popular Italian dish. Here are a couple of approaches I've attempted, with my internal thought process included, and unrelated bits excluded for clarity. Approach 1: "It's conditions all the way down" // "I'll just write the program as I think it, one frame at a time." if (assetsLoaded) { if (userClickedToStart) { if (critterTubDisplayed) { if (crittersDisplayed) { forEach(crittersList, function(c) { if (c.wasClickedRecently) { c.getAgitated(); } }); } else { displayCritters(); } } else { displayCritterTub(); } } else { displayStartScreen(); } } That's a very much simplified example. Yet even with only a fraction of all the rendering conditions visible, render is already starting to get out of hand. So, I dispense with that and try another idea: Approach 2: Under the Rug // "Each view object shall be responsible for its own rendering. // "I'll pass each object the program state, and each can render itself." startScreen.render(state); critterTub.render(state); critterList.render(state); In this setup, I've essentially just pushed those crazy nested conditions to a deeper level in the code, hiding them from view. In other words, startScreen.render would check state to see if it needed actually to be drawn or not, and take the correct action. But this seems more like it only solves a code-aesthetic problem. The third and final approach I'm considering that I'll share is the idea that I could invent my own "wheel" to take care of this. I'm envisioning a function that takes a data structure that defines what should happen at any given point in the render call -- revealing the conditions and dependencies as a kind of tree. Approach 3: Mad Scientist renderTree({ phases: ['startScreen', 'critterTub', 'endCredits'], dependencies: { startScreen: ['assetsLoaded'], critterTub: ['startScreenClicked'], critterList ['critterTubDisplayed'] // etc. }, exclusions: { startScreen: ['startScreenClicked'], // etc. } }); That seems kind of cool. I'm not exactly sure how it would actually work, but I can see it being a rather nifty way to express things, especially if I flex some of JavaScript's events. In any case, I'm a little bit stumped because I don't see an obvious way to do this. If you couldn't tell, I'm coming to this from the web development world, and finding that doing animation is a bit more exotic than arranging an MVC application for handling simple requests - responses. What is the clean, established solution to this common-I-would-think problem?

    Read the article

  • REST - Tradeoffs between content negotiation via Accept header versus extensions

    - by Brandon Linton
    I'm working through designing a RESTful API. We know we want to return JSON and XML for any given resource. I had been thinking we would do something like this: GET /api/something?param1=value1 Accept: application/xml (or application/json) However, someone tossed out using extensions for this, like so: GET /api/something.xml?parm1=value1 (or /api/something.json?param1=value1) What are the tradeoffs with these approaches? Is it best to rely on the accept header when an extension isn't specified, but honor extensions when specified? Is there a drawback to that approach?

    Read the article

  • Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a predictable outcome?

    - by Mrk Mnl
    Is there a phrase to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any possible value for its arguments there is a predicatable outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

    Read the article

  • Programming Language, Turing Completeness and Turing Machine

    - by Amumu
    A programming language is said to be Turing Completeness if it can successfully simulate a universal TM. Let's take functional programming language for example. In functional programming, function has highest priority over anything. You can pass functions around like any primitives or objects. This is called first class function. In functional programming, your function does not produce side effect i.e. output strings onto screen, change the state of variables outside of its scope. Each function has a copy of its own objects if the objects are passed from the outside, and the copied objects are returned once the function finishes its job. Each function written purely in functional style is completely independent to anything outside of it. Thus, the complexity of the overall system is reduced. This is referred as referential transparency. In functional programming, each function can have its local variables kept its values even after the function exits. This is done by the garbage collector. The value can be reused the next time the function is called again. This is called memoization. A function usually should solve only one thing. It should model only one algorithm to answer a problem. Do you think that a function in a functional language with above properties simulate a Turing Machines? Functions (= algorithms = Turing Machines) are able to be passed around as input and returned as output. TM also accepts and simulate other TMs Memoization models the set of states of a Turing Machine. The memorized variables can be used to determine states of a TM (i.e. which lines to execute, what behavior should it take in a give state ...). Also, you can use memoization to simulate your internal tape storage. In language like C/C++, when a function exits, you lose all of its internal data (unless you store it elsewhere outside of its scope). The set of symbols are the set of all strings in a programming language, which is the higher level and human-readable version of machine code (opcode) Start state is the beginning of the function. However, with memoization, start state can be determined by memoization or if you want, switch/if-else statement in imperative programming language. But then, you can't Final accepting state when the function returns a value, or rejects if an exception happens. Thus, the function (= algorithm = TM) is decidable. Otherwise, it's undecidable. I'm not sure about this. What do you think? Is my thinking true on all of this? The reason I bring function in functional programming because I think it's closer to the idea of TM. What experience with other programming languages do you have which make you feel the idea of TM and the ideas of Computer Science in general? Can you specify how you think?

    Read the article

  • From TFS to Git

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm a .NET developer and I've used TFS (team foundation server) as my source control software many times. Good features of TFS are: Good integration with Visual Studio (so I do almost everything visually; no console commands) Easy check-out, check-in process Easy merging and conflict resolution Easy automated builds Branching Now, I want to use Git as the backbone, repository, and source control of my open source projects. My projects are in C#, JavaScript, or PHP language with MySQL, or SQL Server databases as the storage mechanism. I just used github.com's help for this purpose and I created a profile there, and downloaded a GUI for Git. Up to this part was so easy. But I'm almost stuck at going along any further. I just want to do some simple (really simple) operations, including: Creating a project on Git and mapping it to a folder on my laptop Checking out/checking in files and folders Resolving conflicts That's all I need to do now. But it seems that the GUI is not that user friendly. I expect the GUI to have a Connect To... or something like that, and then I expect a list of projects to be shown, and when I choose one, I expect to see the list of files and folders of that project, just like exploring your TFS project in Visual Studio. Then I want to be able to right click a file and select check-in... or check-out and stuff like that. Do I expect much? What should I do to easily use Git just like TFS? What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous update design/interaction patterns

    - by Andy Waite
    These days many apps support asynchronous updates. For example, if you're looking at a list of widgets and you delete one of them then rather than wait for the roundtrip to the server, the app can hide the one you deleted, giving immediate feedback. The actual deletion on the server will happen in the background. This can be seen in web apps, desktop apps, iOS apps, etc. But what about when the background operation fails. How should you feed back to the user? Should you restore the UI to the pre-deletion state? What about when multiple background operations fail together? Does this behaviour/pattern have a name? Perhaps something based on the Command pattern?

    Read the article

  • Software cost estimation

    - by David Conde
    I've seen on my work place (a University) most students making the software estimation cost of their final diploma work using COCOMO. My guessing is that this way of estimating costs is somewhat old (COCOMO dates of 1981), hence my question: How do you estimate costs in your software? I've seen things like : Cost = ( HoursOfWork + EstimatedIddle ) * HourlyRate That's not what I want, I'm looking for a properly (scientifically) defined cost model EDIT I've found some related questions on SO: What are some of the software cost estimation methods and models? How do you estimate the cost of developing software requirements?

    Read the article

  • How do you track third-party software licenses?

    - by emddudley
    How do you track licenses for third-party libraries that you use in your software? How did you vet the licenses? Sometimes licenses change or libraries switch licenses--how do you stay up to date? At the moment I've got an Excel spreadsheet with worksheets for third-party software, licenses, and the projects we use them on (organized like a relational database). It seems to work OK, but I think it will go out-of-date pretty quickly.

    Read the article

  • Developing configuration syntax - best practise/rules/methods?

    - by Isaac
    I am currently developing a small application, which checks if provided data meets certain requirements. The requirements are actually a long list, and might be changing, so I defined a syntax which allows me to state all of the requirements briefly and in a seperate file. Now the overall requirements for the application have changed, and I need to change my configuration syntax. Which leeds me to wonder if there is methodoloy or best practise for developing such syntaxes. Currently what I do is I think about the requirements and come up with an initial syntax, start configuring the first few items and see how it works. If I come upon something that does not work well or not at all with the current syntax, I change the syntax, if possible in a backward compatible way. This somehow works for me, but it feels a bit like fishing in troubled water. Also I feel it does not nessessarly lead to the most concise and easy to understand/use syntax. So I was wondering what other people do, especially if there is a better approach to this.

    Read the article

  • What triggered the popularity of lambda functions in modern mainstream programming languages?

    - by Giorgio
    In the last few years anonymous functions (AKA lambda functions) have become a very popular language construct and almost every major / mainstream programming language has introduced them or is planned to introduce them in an upcoming revision of the standard. Yet, anonymous functions are a very old and very well-known concept in Mathematics and Computer Science (invented by the mathematician Alonzo Church around 1936, and used by the Lisp programming language since 1958, see e.g. here). So why didn't today's mainstream programming languages (many of which originated 15 to 20 years ago) support lambda functions from the very beginning and only introduced them later? And what triggered the massive adoption of anonymous functions in the last few years? Is there some specific event, new requirement or programming technique that started this phenomenon? IMPORTANT NOTE The focus of this question is the introduction of anonymous functions in modern, main-stream (and therefore, maybe with a few exceptions, non functional) languages. Also, note that anonymous functions (blocks) are present in Smalltalk, which is not a functional language, and that normal named functions have been present even in procedural languages like C and Pascal for a long time. Please do not overgeneralize your answers by speaking about "the adoption of the functional paradigm and its benefits", because this is not the topic of the question.

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem in this social network model

    - by Gerenuk
    I'm trying to design a class system for a social network data model - basically a link/object system. Now I have roughly the following structure (simplified and only relevant methods shown) class Data: "used to handle the data with mongodb" "can link, unlink data and also return other linked data" "is basically a proxy object that only stores _id and accesses mongodb on requests" "it looks like {_id: ..., _out: [id1, id2,...], _inc: [id3, id4, ...]}" def get_node(self, id) "create a new Data object from the underlying mongodb" "each data object can potentially create a reference object to new mongo data" "this is needed when the data returns the linked objects" class Node: """ this class proxies linking calls to .data it includes additional network logic operations whereas Data only contains a basic database solution """ def __init__(self, data): "the infrastructure realization is stored as composition by an included object data" "Node bascially proxies most calls to the infrastructure object data" def get_node(self, data): "creates a new object of class Object or Link depending on data" class Object(Node): "can have multiple connections to Link" class Link(Node): "has one 'in' and one 'out' connection to an Object" This system is working, however maybe wouldn't work outside Python. Note that after reading links Now I have two questions here: 1) I want to infrastructure of the data storage to be replacable. Earlier I had Data as a superclass of Node so that it provided the neccessary calls. But (without dirty Python tricks) you cannot replace the superclass dynamically. Is using composition therefore recommended? The drawback is that I have to proxy most calls (link, unlink etc). Any thoughts? 2) The class Node contains the common method .get_node which is used to built new Object or Link instances after reading out the data. Some attribute of data decided whether the object which is only stored by id should be instantiated as an Object or Link class. The problem here is that Node needs to know about Object and Link in advance, which seems dodgy. Do you see a different solution? Both Object and Link need to instantiate one of all possible types depending on what the find in their linked data. Are there any other ideas how to implement a flexible Object/Link structure where the underlying database storage is isolated?

    Read the article

  • Is conditional return type ever a good idea?

    - by qegal
    So I have a method that's something like this: -(BOOL)isSingleValueRecord And another method like this: -(Type)typeOfSingleValueRecord And it occurred to me that I could combine them into something like this: -(id)isSingleValueRecord And have the implementation be something like this: -(id)isSingleValueRecord { //If it is single value if(self.recordValue = 0) { //Do some stuff to determine type, then return it return typeOfSingleValueRecord; } //If its not single value else { //Return "NO" return [NSNumber numberWithBool:NO]; } } So combining the two methods makes it more efficient but makes the readability go down. In my gut, I feel like I should go with the two-method version, but is that really right? Is there any case that I should go with the combined version?

    Read the article

  • Should I use the cool, new and awesome stuff [closed]

    - by Ieyasu Sawada
    I'm in the field of Web Development. I follow a lot of awesome people on Twitter(Paul Irish, Alex Sexton, David Walsh, Rebecca Murphey, etc.) By following these people I'm constantly updated of the new and cool stuff in web development(backbone.js, angular.js, require.js, ember.js, jasmine, etc.) Now I'm creating a web application for a client and because of the different tools, libraries, plugins that I'm aware of I don't even know anymore when do I need to use those or do I even need those, or how do I even implement it in a sane way where I won't have to repeat myself(DRY). What's your advice on what I really need to do in order to become better. Do I really need to use these cool new tools or should I just stick with what I know for now and try to make my code better. Should I unfollow these people in order to not pollute my mind with stuff that I can't really use now because I don't have the necessary experience in order to use it. What sort of things should I really be focusing on for someone like me who has only about 2 years of experience in the field of web development.

    Read the article

  • How could a human factors degree help a computer scientist?

    - by Bob Dole
    I'm wrapping up a masters in CS and already have half the credit hours needed for a degree in Human Factors. I just recently discovered how useful understanding about cognition can help someone that creates user interfaces and am thirsty for more knowledge in the area. For me, it seems that having both a masters in Human Factors and CS would be very marketable but would there be jobs out there that would allow me to apply both? Meaning what I would really like to do is take the requirements for some application, apply different Human Factors theories( GOMS, CE+ ) to developing the interface, maybe do cognitive walk through with users to optimize the UI, then develop the application. Do jobs out there exist like this? The reason I ask, is because I'm wondering if most places just want you to be either a Human Factors Expert or a Developer but not both.

    Read the article

  • Are there any drawbacks to the Major.Minor.YMDD.Build version strategy?

    - by Chu
    I'm trying to come up with a good version strategy to fit our specific needs. We've proposed settling on this and I wanted to ask the question to see if anyone's experience would suggest avoiding this or altering it in any way. Here's our proposal: Versions are released in this format: MAJOR.MINOR.YMDD.BN. Here it is broken out: MAJOR & MINOR are typical; we'll increase MINOR when we feel code and new feature sets warrants it; once every few months most likely. MAJOR will increase ~yearly. YMDD: Y will be the last digit of the current year, so "1" for 2011, "2" for 2012, etc. A non-padded month will be used to keep the number smaller (9 instead of 09 for example). DD of course is the day, padded with a zero for days under 10. BN: BN is the build number and increases by one anytime we make a change to a branch of the code represented by the build, for example: If were to make a build today, our release would be version 5.0.1707.1. I release to QA today and 3 days from now QA finds that a change broke the save functionality on a page. Instead of me changing our current development code, I'd go back to the code that I used to create version 5.0.1707.1, make the fix there, then increase the BN portion of the version and would then re-release 5.0.1707.2 back to QA. In short, anytime a change is made to a branched version that isn't the active dev branch, we'd use the original version number and increase only the BN portion (even if the change happened 3 days, 3 weeks or 3 months from the initial release of that version). Anytime we make a new release from our Active dev branch, we'd come up with a new version based on the M/D of the release using the outlined strategy. We do this once every 2-3 weeks. Are there holes or pitfalls with this? If so, what are they? Thanks EDIT To clarify one point that I didn't get out very well - Oct/Nov/Dec will be two digits, it's only the year that won't be. So 9 for Sept, 10 for Oct, 11 for Nov, etc.

    Read the article

  • Compiled code spreadsheet-like cell management? (auto-updating)

    - by proGrammar
    Okay so I am fully aware how spreadsheets manage cells, they build dependency graphs where when one cell changes it tells all the other cells that are dependent on it that it changed. So they can from there update. How they update I think involves either re-evaluating the formulas stored as strings, or re-evaluating the abstract syntax tree which I think is stored differently and might be faster. Something like that. What I'm looking to do is manage a few variables in my code so I don't have to update them in the correct way, which would be a nightmare. But I also want it much faster than spreadsheets. And since I'm not looking for any functionality as great as are in these spreadsheets, I just figured from that thought point that there has to be a way to have a very fast implementation of this functionality. Especially since I don't have to modify cells after compiling unless that would be an option. I'm very new to programming so I have no idea. One example might be to have a code-generator that generates code that does this for me. But I have no clue what the generated code would look like. Specifically, how exactly would variables inform others that they need to update, and what do those variables do to update? I'm looking for any kind of ideas. Programming is not my job but nonetheless I was hoping to have some kind of system like this that would greatly help me with some stuff. Of course I have been programming plenty lately so I can still program. I just don't have the full scope on things. I'm looking for any kind of ideas, thank you very much in advance! Also, please help me with the tags. I know C# and Java mainly and I'm hoping to implement this in either of those languages and I'm hoping this can stay in those tags. Forcing this into some kind of spreadsheet tag wouldn't be accurate.

    Read the article

  • Can Scala be considered a functional superset of Java?

    - by Giorgio
    Apart from the differences in syntax, can Scala be considered a superset of Java that adds the functional paradigm to the object-oriented paradigm? Or are there any major features in Java for which there is no direct Scala equivalent? With major features I mean program constructs that would force me to heavily rewrite / restructure my code, e.g., if I had to port a Java program to Scala. Or can I expect that, given a Java program, I can port it to Scala almost line-by-line?

    Read the article

  • What defines a language as a scripting language? [closed]

    - by Mathew Foscarini
    Possible Duplicate: What is the main difference between Scripting Languages and Programming Languages? I'd like to know what defines a language as a scripting language compared against other programming languages. Some possible scripting languages might include AutoCad LISP, Linux Bash, DOS Batch, Javascript or ActionScript in Flash. Where is the distinction made that makes a language a scripting language? Are there a set of clearly define rules to classify it as such?

    Read the article

  • Find points whose pairwise distances approximate a given distance matrix

    - by Stephan Kolassa
    Problem. I have a symmetric distance matrix with entries between zero and one, like this one: D = ( 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.5 ) ( 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.0 ) ( 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 ) ( 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 ) I would like to find points in the plane that have (approximately) the pairwise distances given in D. I understand that this will usually not be possible with strictly correct distances, so I would be happy with a "good" approximation. My matrices are smallish, no more than 10x10, so performance is not an issue. Question. Does anyone know of an algorithm to do this? Background. I have sets of probability densities between which I calculate Hellinger distances, which I would like to visualize as above. Each set contains no more than 10 densities (see above), but I have a couple of hundred sets. What I did so far. I did consider posting at math.SE, but looking at what gets tagged as "geometry" there, it seems like this kind of computational geometry question would be more on-topic here. If the community thinks this should be migrated, please go ahead. This looks like a straightforward problem in computational geometry, and I would assume that anyone involved in clustering might be interested in such a visualization, but I haven't been able to google anything. One simple approach would be to randomly plonk down points and perturb them until the distance matrix is close to D, e.g., using Simulated Annealing, or run a Genetic Algorithm. I have to admit that I haven't tried that yet, hoping for a smarter way. One specific operationalization of a "good" approximation in the sense above is Problem 4 in the Open Problems section here, with k=2. Now, while finding an algorithm that is guaranteed to find the minimum l1-distance between D and the resulting distance matrix may be an open question, it still seems possible that there at least is some approximation to this optimal solution. If I don't get an answer here, I'll mail the gentleman who posed that problem and ask whether he knows of any approximation algorithm (and post any answer I get to that here).

    Read the article

  • Relationship DAO, Servlet, JSP and POJO

    - by John Hendrik
    I want to implement a JSP, POJO, DAO and Servlet in my J2EE program. However, I don't fully understand how the relationship between these elements should be. Is the following (MVC) setup the right way to do it? Main class creates servlet(controller) Servlet has a DAO defined in its class DAO has a POJO defined in its class Servlet communicates with the view (JSP page) Please give your feedback.

    Read the article

  • What have you seen go wrong when introducing SCRUM?

    - by cringe
    What was the single point of failure encountered when your company decided to replace the current processes with SCRUM? Can you give me some examples of things that have gone really wrong when a company tried to introduce SCRUM? I'd like to hear your anecdotes, something you experienced yourself, the big fail that you saw coming but couldn't prevent. I hear a lot of concern about missing documentation on decisions about the implementation details, and about story sizes and detail level of the stories.

    Read the article

  • Many small scripts, one repository or multiple?

    - by The Jug
    A co-worker and myself have run into an issue that we have multiple opinions on. Currently we have a git repository that we are keeping all of our cronjobs in. There are about 20 crons and they are not really related except for the fact that they are all small python scripts and essential for some activity. We are using a fabric.py file to deploy and a requirements.txt file to manage requirements for all of the scripts. Our issue is basically, do we keep all of these scripts in one git repository or should we be separating them out into their own repositories? By keeping them in one repository it is easier to deploy them onto one server. We can use just one cron file for all the scripts. However this feels wrong, as the 20 cronjobs are not logically related. Additionally, when using one requirements.txt file for all the scripts, it's hard to figure out what the dependencies are for a particular script and they all have to use the same versions of packages. We could separate all of the scripts out into their own repositories but this creates 20 different repositories that need to be remembered and dealt with. Most of these scripts are not very large and that solution seems to be overkill. A related question is, do we use one big crontab file for all cronjobs, or a separate file for each? If each has their own, how does one crontab's installation avoid overwriting the other 19? This also seems like a pain as there would then by 20 different cron files to keep track of. In short, our main question and issue is do we keep them all closely bundled as one repository or do we separate them out into their own repository with their own requirements.txt and fabfile.py? We feel like we're also probably looking over some really simple solution. Is there an easier way to deal with this issue?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251  | Next Page >