Search Results

Search found 16554 results on 663 pages for 'programmers identity'.

Page 308/663 | < Previous Page | 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315  | Next Page >

  • Is Moving Entity Framework objects over a webservice really the best way?

    - by aceinthehole
    I've inherited a .NET project that has close to 2 thousand clients out in the field that need to push data periodically up to a central repository. The clients wake up and attempt to push the data up via a series of WCF webservices where they are passing each entity framework entity as parameter. Once the service receives this object, it preforms some business logic on the data, and then turns around and sticks it in it's own database that mirrors the database on the client machines. The trick is, is that this data is being transmitted over a metered connection, which is very expensive. So optimizing the data is a serious priority. Now, we are using a custom encoder that compresses the data (and decompresses it on the other end) while it is being transmitted, and this is reducing the data footprint. However, the amount of data that the clients are using, seem ridiculously large, given the amount of information that is actually being transmitted. It seems me that entity framework itself may be to blame. I'm suspecting that the objects are very large when serialized to be sent over wire, with a lot context information and who knows what else, when what we really need is just the 'new' inserts. Is using the entity framework and WCF services as we have done so far the correct way, architecturally, of approaching this n-tiered, asynchronous, push only problem? Or is there a different approach, that could optimize the data use?

    Read the article

  • Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

    - by Prog
    The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

    Read the article

  • Techniques and methods to improve and speedup development

    - by Jlouro
    I just got a new project. It’s a WinForm app. And it’s interesting because I will have the possibility to learn how fish farms work and are managed. I will have to develop touch interfaces, and use datasnap to communicate and sync data between farm and office. The development will be done in DELPHI win32, still not sure about the database, but maybe SQLlite. So now comes the difficult part of the project, building it. I am just finishing one. It took me a lot of time to do it and I am a bit “burned out”. I will have time to relax, not much, but a few days. What I am looking is some tips and tricks and possibly tools to be able to speed up the development. It must be up and running in 2 months. So what tricks do you use to speed up things?

    Read the article

  • Should I limit my type name suffix vocabulary when using OOP?

    - by Den
    My co-workers tend to think that it is better to limit non-domain type suffixes to a small fixed set of OOP-pattern inspired words, e.g.: *Service *Repository *Factory *Manager *Provider I believe there is no reason to not extend that set with more names, e.g. (some "translation" to the previous vocabulary is given in brackets): *Distributor (= *DistributionManager or *SendingService) *Generator *Browser (= *ReadonlyRepositoryService) *Processor *Manipulator (= *StateMachineManager) *Enricher (= *EnrichmentService) (*) denotes some domain word, e.g. "Order", "Student", "Item" etc. The domain is probably not complex enough to use specialized approaches such as DDD which could drive the naming.

    Read the article

  • 0.00006103515625 GB of RAM. Is .NET MicroFramework part of Windows CE?

    - by Rocket Surgeon
    The .NET MicroFramework claims to work on 64K RAM and has list of compatible targets vendors. At the same time, same vendors who ship hardware and create Board Support Packages (vendors like Adeneo) keep releasing something named Windows 7 CE BSP for the same hardware targets. Obviously the OS as heavy as WinCE needs more than 64K RAM. So, somehow .NET MicroFramework is relevant to WinCE, but how ? Is it part of bigger OS or is it base of it, or are both mutually exclusive ? Background: 0.00006103515625 GByte of RAM is same as 64Kbyte of RAM. I am looking for possiblity to use Microsoft development tools for small target like BeagleBone. http://www.adeneo-embedded.com/About-Us/News/Release-of-TI-BeagleBone Nice. Now .. where is a MicroFramework for the same beaglebone ? Is it inside the released pile ?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • When does implementing MVVM not make sense

    - by Kelly Sommers
    I am a big fan of various patterns and enjoy learning new ones all the time however I think with all the evangelism around popular patterns and anti-patterns sometimes this causes blind adoption. I think most things have individual pros and cons and it's important to educate what the cons are and when it doesn't make sense to make a particular choice. The pros are constantly advocated. "It depends" I think applies most times but the industry does a poor job at communicating what it depends ON. Also many patterns surfaced from inheriting values from previous patterns or have derivatives, which each one brings another set of pros and cons to the table. The sooner we are more aware of the trade off's of decisions we make in software architecture the sooner we make better decisions. This is my first challenge to the community. Even if you are a big fan of said pattern, I challenge you to discover the cons and when you shouldn't use it. Define when MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel) may not make sense in a particular piece of software and based on what reasons. MVVM has a set of pros and cons. Let's try to define them. GO! :)

    Read the article

  • How can I distribute a unique database already in production?

    - by JVerstry
    Let's assume a successful web Spring application running on a MySQL or PostgreSQL database. The traffic is becoming so high and the amount of data is becoming so big that a distributed database solution needs to be implemented to address scalability issue. Let's also assume this application is using Hibernate and the data access layer is cleanly separated with DAOs. Ideally, one should be able to add or remove databases easily. A failback solution is welcome too. What would be the best strategy to scale this database? Is it possible to minimize sharding code (Shard) in the application?

    Read the article

  • Where can I find a legal "permission to work on open source" document?

    - by Nathan Long
    One of the things I really like about my current job is that we developers are encouraged to make open source contributions. However, this encouragement has always been verbal. I've read some horror stories about developers having their open-source work legally claimed by their employer. I'd be more comfortable if we had something in writing from my employer saying that contributions are allowed and not owned by the company. Understanding that you are not lawyers, does anyone know where to find a boilerplate document to this effect?

    Read the article

  • how to generate number pattern in triangular form

    - by Vignesh Vicky
    I want to print this pattern like right angled triangle 0 909 89098 7890987 678909876 56789098765 4567890987654 345678909876543 23456789098765432 1234567890987654321 I wrote following code # include<stdio.h> # include<conio.h> void main() { clrscr(); int i,j,x,z,k,f=1; for ( i=10;i>=1;i--,f++) { for(j=1;j<=f;j++,k--) { k=i; if(k!=10) { printf("%d",k); } if(k==10) { printf("0"); } } for(x=1;x<f;x++,z--) { z=9; printf("%d",z); } printf("%d/n"); } getch(); } what is wrong with this code? when i check manually it seems correct but when compiled gives different pattern

    Read the article

  • Misconceptions about purely functional languages?

    - by Giorgio
    I often encounter the following statements / arguments: Pure functional programming languages do not allow side effects (and are therefore of little use in practice because any useful program does have side effects, e.g. when it interacts with the external world). Pure functional programming languages do not allow to write a program that maintains state (which makes programming very awkward because in many application you do need state). I am not an expert in functional languages but here is what I have understood about these topics until now. Regarding point 1, you can interact with the environment in purely functional languages but you have to explicitly mark the code (functions) that introduces them (e.g. in Haskell by means of monadic types). Also, AFAIK computing by side effects (destructively updating data) should also be possible (using monadic types?) but is not the preferred way of working. Regarding point 2, AFAIK you can represent state by threading values through several computation steps (in Haskell, again, using monadic types) but I have no practical experience doing this and my understanding is rather vague. So, are the two statements above correct in any sense or are they just misconceptions about purely functional languages? If they are misconceptions, how did they come about? Could you write a (possibly small) code snippet illustrating the Haskell idiomatic way to (1) implement side effects and (2) implement a computation with state?

    Read the article

  • Database Driven Web Application, C# Front-End and F# Back-End meaning

    - by user1473053
    Hi I am an intern working with ASP.NET. My current task is to make a website which will incorporate some jquery viewing features. This project seems to me will be primarily dealing with reading data from a database and making graphs out of them. This will require me to make custom queries from whatever the client is looking at. I think it is going to be what this guy calls an Ad Hoc Query tool My plan for this is to make it a database-driven website. So I can utilize the jquery dynamic viewing capabilities. I stumbled upon the functional programming paradigm and found F#. I read that because of it's functional programming paradigm, it makes it a good language to do asynchronous functions. I read about how you can use this with LINQ to SQL and how easy it is to make queries without actually putting the query language in. I understand the concept of the MVC design pattern. But I don't understand what they mean about C# being the front-end and F# being the back-end. Can someone clarify this to me? Also what are your thoughts about doing this project in this way? Any comments and thoughts are greatly appreciated. I feel as if learning F# will be a great learning experience for me. My guess is that the F# back-end is like the part where it controls the calls to the database. F# is possibly the model part of the design pattern. And C# is the controller. So HTML, Javascript and Jquery stuff will be my View design pattern. Clarify please?

    Read the article

  • Named arguments (parameters) as a readability aid

    - by Damian Mehers
    A long time ago I programmed a lot in ADA, and it was normal to name arguments when invoking a function - SomeObject.DoSomething(SomeParameterName = someValue); Now that C# supports named arguments, I'm thinking about reverting to this habit in situations where it might not be obvious what an argument means. You might argue that it should always be obvious what an argument means, but if you have a boolean argument, and callers are passing in "true" or "false" then qualifying the value with the name makes the call site more readable. contentFetcher.DownloadNote(note, manual : true); I guess I could create Enums instead of using true or false (Manual, Automatic in this case). What do you think about occasionally using named arguments to make code easier to read?

    Read the article

  • How do you unit test your javascript

    - by Erin
    I spend a lot of time working in javascript of late. I have not found a way that seems to work well for testing javascript. This in the past hasn't been a problem for me since most of the websites I worked on had very little javascript in them. I now have a new website that makes extensive use of jQuery I would like to build unit tests for most of the system. My problems are this. Most of the functions make changes to the DOM in some way. Most of the functions request data from the web server as well and require a session on the service to get results back. I would like to run the test from either a command line or a test running harness rather then in a browser. Any help or articles I should be reading would be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Single or multiple return statements in a function [on hold]

    - by Juan Carlos Coto
    When writing a function that can have several different return values, particularly when different branches of code return different values, what is the cleanest or sanest way of returning? Please note the following are really contrived examples meant only to illustrate different styles. Example 1: Single return def my_function(): if some_condition: return_value = 1 elif another_condition: return_value = 2 else: return_value = 3 return return_value Example 2: Multiple returns def my_function(): if some_condition: return 1 elif another_condition: return 2 else: return 3 The second example seems simpler and is perhaps more readable. The first one, however, might describe the overall logic a bit better (the conditions affect the assignment of the value, not whether it's returned or not). Is the second way preferable to the first? Why?

    Read the article

  • What are the downsides of leaving automation tags in production code?

    - by joshin4colours
    I've been setting up debug tags for automated testing of a GWT-based web application. This involves turning on custom debug id tags/attributes for elements in the source of the app. It's a non-trivial task, particularly for larger, more complex web applications. Recently there's been some discussion of whether enabling such debug ids is a good idea to do across the board. Currently the debug ids are only turned on in development and testing servers, not in production. There have been points raised that enabling debug ids does cause performance to take a hit, and that debug ids in production may lead to security issues. What are benefits of doing this? Are there any significant risks for turning on debug tags in production code?

    Read the article

  • Is this an acceptable approach to undo/redo in Python?

    - by Codemonkey
    I'm making an application (wxPython) to process some data from Excel documents. I want the user to be able to undo and redo actions, even gigantic actions like processing the contents of 10 000 cells simultaneously. I Googled the topic, and all the solutions I could find involves a lot of black magic or is overly complicated. Here is how I imagine my simple undo/redo scheme. I write two classes - one called ActionStack and an abstract one called Action. Every "undoable" operation must be a subclass of Action and define the methods do and undo. The Action subclass is passed the instance of the "document", or data model, and is responsible for committing the operation and remembering how to undo the change. Now, every document is associated with an instance of the ActionStack. The ActionStack maintains a stack of actions (surprise!). Every time actions are undone and new actions are performed, all undone actions are removed for ever. The ActionStack will also automatically remove the oldest Action when the stack reaches the configurable maximum amount. I imagine the workflow would produce code looking something like this: class TableDocument(object): def __init__(self, table): self.table = table self.action_stack = ActionStack(history_limit=50) # ... def delete_cells(self, cells): self.action_stack.push( DeleteAction(self, cells) ) def add_column(self, index, name=''): self.action_stack.push( AddColumnAction(self, index, name) ) # ... def undo(self, count=1): self.action_stack.undo(count) def redo(self, count=1): self.action_stack.redo(count) Given that none of the methods I've found are this simple, I thought I'd get the experts' opinion before I go ahead with this plan. More specifically, what I'm wondering about is - are there any glaring holes in this plan that I'm not seeing?

    Read the article

  • How do you support your code post employment end?

    - by James
    What is the process for leaving a company (or even a group/division) in terms of code support? Is it best to handle all questions? Do you give the remaining developers access to yourself as a future resource? If so, is there a way to not give full access? I've experienced first hand where answers about the general software arthitecture from the initial developer would be invaluable. I understand that if serious assistance is needed, than it becomes a typical case of employment negotiation as a support contract. However, should serious assistance be required, what steps can you make to ease that process of contacting you? I was thinking of doing something like making a (YOUR_NAME)_codesupport @ (YOUR_FAVORITE_EMAIL_CLIENT).com address. My Situation Specifics: I'm a co-op student, and as such bounce around companies on 4-month stints. This means introducing myself to a lot of new code bases, as well as leaving a fair share of orphaned code behind when I leave a company. I feel bad if I leave junk code around.

    Read the article

  • General solution to solve different sports results in different languages

    - by sq2
    I currently have some code that checks if squash and tennis scores are valid, both in javascript and PHP. This results in 4 blocks of code existing, 2 languages * 2 sports, which does not scale well should any extra sports come around, or extra languages... How can one describe the valid scores of games via a settings/text file, so that each language can parse them and apply these rules. I'm stumped with the strange tie break situations in tennis should it reach 6-6 in a set, and also infinite play off in the final set should it reach 2 sets all. ie: tennis = { "format": [ { "name": "sets" "min": 3, "max": 5, "winby": 1 }, { "name": "games" "min": 6, "max": 7, "winby": 2 } ] } squash = { "format": [ { "name": "games" "min": 3, "max": 5, "winby": 1 }, { "name": "points" "min": 15, "max": 0, "winby": 2 } ] }

    Read the article

  • tdd is about design not verification what does it concretely mean?

    - by sigo
    I've been wondering about this. What do we exactly mean by design and verification. Should I just apply tdd to make sure my code is SOLID and not check is correct external behaviour ? Should I use Bdd for the correct behaviour part ? Where I get confused also is regarding TDD code katas, to me they looked like more about verification than design... shouldn't they be called bdd katas instead of tdd katas? I reckon that for example uncle bob bowling kata leads in the end to a simple and nice internal design but I felt that most of the process was more around vérification than design. Design seemed to be a side effect of testing incrementally the external behaviour. I didnt feel so much that we were focusing most of our efforts on design but more on vérification. While normally we are told the contrary, that in TDD, verification is a side effect, design is the main purpose. So my question is what should i focus exactly on when i do tdd: SOLID, external Api usability, what else...? And how can I do that without being focused on verification ? What do you guys focus your energy on when you are practicing TDD ?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use the same name for arguments and members?

    - by stijn
    Sometimes I write constructor code like class X { public: X( const int numberOfThingsToDo ) : numberOfThingsToDo( numberOfThingsToDo ) { } private: int numberOfThingsToDo; }; or in C# class X { public X( int numberOfThingsToDo ) { this.numberOfThingsToDo = numberOfThingsToDo; } private int numberOfThingsToDo; } I think the main reason is that when I come up with a suitable member name, I see no reason to use a different one for the argument initializing it, and since I'm also no fan of using underscores the easiest is just to pick the same name. After all it's suitable. Is this considered bad practice however? Any drawbacks (apart from shooting yourself in the foot when forgetting the this in C#)?

    Read the article

  • Is creating a separate pool for each individual image created from a png appropriate?

    - by Panzercrisis
    I'm still possibly a little green about object-pooling, and I want to make sure something like this is a sound design pattern before really embarking upon it. Take the following code (which uses the Starling framework in ActionScript 3): [Embed(source = "/../assets/images/game/misc/red_door.png")] private const RED_DOOR:Class; private const RED_DOOR_TEXTURE:Texture = Texture.fromBitmap(new RED_DOOR()); private const m_vRedDoorPool:Vector.<Image> = new Vector.<Image>(50, true); . . . public function produceRedDoor():Image { // get a Red Door image } public function retireRedDoor(pImage:Image):void { // retire a Red Door Image } Except that there are four colors: red, green, blue, and yellow. So now we have a separate pool for each color, a separate produce function for each color, and a separate retire function for each color. Additionally there are several items in the game that follow this 4-color pattern, so for each of them, we have four pools, four produce functions, and four retire functions. There are more colors involved in the images themselves than just their predominant one, so trying to throw all the doors, for instance, in a single pool, and then changing their color properties around isn't going to work. Also the nonexistence of the static keyword is due to its slowness in AS3. Is this the right way to do things?

    Read the article

  • How to shift development culture from tech fetish to focusing on simplicity and getting things done?

    - by Serge
    Looking for ways to switch team/individual culture from chasing latest fads, patterns, and all kinds of best practices to focusing on finding quickest and simplest solutions and shipping features. My definition of "tech fetish": Chasing latest fads, applying new technologies and best practices without considering product/project impact, focusing on micro optimization, creating platforms and frameworks instead of finding simple and quick ways to ship product features. Few examples of culture differences: From "Spent a day on trying to map database query with five complex joins in NHibernate" to "Wrote a SQL query and used DataReader to pull data in" From "Wrote super-fast JSON parser in C++" to "Used Python to parse JSON response and call C++ code" From "Let's use WCF because it supports all possible communication standards" to "REST is simple text-based format, let's stick with it and use simple HTTP handlers"

    Read the article

  • What are the recommended resources for learning about the Actor model of concurrent systems?

    - by Larry OBrien
    The Actor concurrency model is clearly gaining favor. Is there a good book that presents the patterns and pitfalls of the model? I am thinking about something that would discuss, for instance, the problems of consistency and correctness in the context of hundreds or thousands of independent Actors. It would be okay if it were associated with a specific language (Erlang, I would imagine, since that seems universally regarded as the proven implementation of Actors), but I am hoping for something more than an introductory chapter or two. I'm actually most interested in Actors as they are implemented in Scala, if there are any such resources available.

    Read the article

  • Mythbusters- Programming/hacking myths [closed]

    - by stephen776
    Hey guys. I am a big fan of the Discovery show Mythbusters, as Im sure some of you are as well. I have always wanted them to do an episode on programming/hacking. They get a lot of their show ideas from fans so I though we could compile a list of possible myths to bust. Lets hear your ideas! (sorry if this is not appropriate, close if necessary) Edit: I am not necessarily looking for subjective "This is what I want to see" answers. I am talking more along the lines of interesting computer/programming/hacking stories that would appeal to a general audience. I do not expect them to do a show on "Whats faster i++ or i + 1".

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315  | Next Page >