Search Results

Search found 4243 results on 170 pages for 'anti patterns'.

Page 4/170 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How often are design patterns used in the workplace using PHP

    - by Metropolis
    Hey everyone, I read a book awhile back called PHP Design Patterns and Practice, and ever since then I have been using design patterns whenever I think they are needed. However it just occurred to me that maybe most companies do not use design patterns very often for PHP, or at all. What I was wondering is, do most companies use design patterns to help improve code flexibility? And if so, what are the best design patterns to learn for PHP? Thanks for any help on this, Metropolis

    Read the article

  • Has the emerging generation of programmers got the wrong idea about design patterns? [closed]

    - by MattDavey
    Over the years I've noticed a shift in attitude towards design patterns, particularly amongst the emerging generation of developers. There seems to be a notion these days that design patterns are silver bullets that instantly cure any problem, a proliferating idea that advancing as a software engineer simply means learning and applying more and more patterns. When confronted with a problem, developers no longer strive to truly understand the issue and design a solution - instead they simply pick a design pattern which seems to be a close fit, and try to brute-force it. You can see evidence of this by the many, many questions on Stack Overflow that begin with the phrase "what pattern should I use to...". I fall into a slightly more mature category of developers (5-10 years experience) and I have a very different viewpoint on patterns - simply as a communication tool to enhance clarity. I find this perspective of design patterns being lego bricks (collected like pokemon cards) a little disconcerting. Will developers lose this attitude as they gain more experience in software engineering? Or could these notions perhaps steer the direction of our craft in years to come? Did the older generation of developers have any similar concerns about us? (perhaps about OO design or similar...). if so, how did we turn out?

    Read the article

  • Anti Virus Service does not run - Windows XP SP3 32bit Home

    - by Stefan Fassel
    I have a somewhat strange problem here. I am trying to run Anti Virus Software on my Windows XP Home 32bit System. After a serious crash I had to fall back to an outdated copy of my initial installation and had Windows install 5 years of updates. So far so good. After Intalling a new Anti Virus Software (Bitdefender 2012) everything seemed to be fine, initial scanning went fine and configuration was working. But after restarting the System the Virus Scanner was unable to start up again. Even the Configuration console of the AV Software did not start. I tried scanning the System for malware, but nothing was found. Then I tried a different AV Software (MS Security Essentials), but in the end it did fail to start too. I have tried to start the Service manually, but I seem to be missing the privilege to do so. I am logged in as a Non-"Administrator" User with Admin privileges (Not much choices there on a XP Home System). I cannot switch to Administrator account outside the protected mode. When running Windows in protected mode I am unable to start the AV Software because it does not run in protected mode. I am a bit at loss now...

    Read the article

  • Magento Design Patterns

    - by JonB
    Magento, IMHO, represents a PHP system that is built on well thought-out coding principles - reuseable design patterns being one of them. In terms of an example of a PHP system, I think it can be considered pretty cutting edge and therefore worth considering from an architectural point of view. As I understand it, there are many design patterns that are available to the OOP developer. Seeing such patterns being put to use in an open-source system such as Magento allows a developer to view examples of such patterns in real use and in situ, rather than in examples that can sometimes be rather achedemic, and even a little misleading. As such, I am wondering what patterns, other than the ones I have listed below, Magento programmers have used when developing for Magento. As a note, I understand that some of these patterns are in place as a consequence of being built on the Zend Framework, MVC / Front Controller being a couple of them, The obvious ones are: Factory: $product = Mage::getModel('catalog/product'); Singleton: $category = Mage::getSingleton('catalog/session'); Registry: $currentCategory = Mage::registry('current_category');

    Read the article

  • Which Free Online Antivirus Scanner is the Best? [Comparison Test and Results]

    - by Asian Angel
    There are times when an online or supplementary scanner can be very useful when cleaning up an infected computer or just to get a second opinion on the security of your system. With this purpose in mind, the good folks over at the 7 Tutorials blog decided to do a test using the ten most popular online security scanners to see what worked the best and what did not. The following scanners were used for the test: Bitdefender QuickScan, BullGuard Online Scanner, Comodo Cloud Scanner, ESET Free Online Scanner, F-Secure Online Scanner, Kaspersky Security Scan, McAfee Security Scan Plus, Norton Security Scan, Panda ActiveScan and Trend Micro HouseCall. Are there any online or supplementary scanners that you use and depend on? Do you agree or disagree with the results? Let us know in the comments! Test Comparison – What is the Best Free Online Antivirus Scanner? [7 Tutorials] HTG Explains: Why Linux Doesn’t Need Defragmenting How to Convert News Feeds to Ebooks with Calibre How To Customize Your Wallpaper with Google Image Searches, RSS Feeds, and More

    Read the article

  • Best Design Pattern for Coupling User Interface Components and Data Structures

    - by szahn
    I have a windows desktop application with a tree view. Due to lack of a sound data-binding solution for a tree view, I've implemented my own layer of abstraction on it to bind nodes to my own data structure. The requirements are as follows: Populate a tree view with nodes that resemble fields in a data structure. When a node is clicked, display the appropriate control to modify the value of that property in the instance of the data structure. The tree view is populated with instances of custom TreeNode classes that inherit from TreeNode. The responsibility of each custom TreeNode class is to (1) format the node text to represent the name and value of the associated field in my data structure, (2) return the control used to modify the property value, (3) get the value of the field in the control (3) set the field's value from the control. My custom TreeNode implementation has a property called "Control" which retrieves the proper custom control in the form of the base control. The control instance is stored in the custom node and instantiated upon first retrieval. So each, custom node has an associated custom control which extends a base abstract control class. Example TreeNode implementation: //The Tree Node Base Class public abstract class TreeViewNodeBase : TreeNode { public abstract CustomControlBase Control { get; } public TreeViewNodeBase(ExtractionField field) { UpdateControl(field); } public virtual void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { Control.UpdateControl(field); UpdateCaption(FormatValueForCaption()); } public virtual void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { Control.SaveChanges(field); UpdateCaption(FormatValueForCaption()); } public virtual string FormatValueForCaption() { return Control.FormatValueForCaption(); } public virtual void UpdateCaption(string newValue) { this.Text = Caption; this.LongText = newValue; } } //The tree node implementation class public class ExtractionTypeNode : TreeViewNodeBase { private CustomDropDownControl control; public override CustomControlBase Control { get { if (control == null) { control = new CustomDropDownControl(); control.label1.Text = Caption; control.comboBox1.Items.Clear(); control.comboBox1.Items.AddRange( Enum.GetNames( typeof(ExtractionField.ExtractionType))); } return control; } } public ExtractionTypeNode(ExtractionField field) : base(field) { } } //The custom control base class public abstract class CustomControlBase : UserControl { public abstract void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field); public abstract void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field); public abstract string FormatValueForCaption(); } //The custom control generic implementation (view) public partial class CustomDropDownControl : CustomControlBase { public CustomDropDownControl() { InitializeComponent(); } public override void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { //Nothing to do here } public override void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { //Nothing to do here } public override string FormatValueForCaption() { //Nothing to do here return string.Empty; } } //The custom control specific implementation public class FieldExtractionTypeControl : CustomDropDownControl { public override void UpdateControl(ExtractionField field) { comboBox1.SelectedIndex = comboBox1.FindStringExact(field.Extraction.ToString()); } public override void SaveChanges(ExtractionField field) { field.Extraction = (ExtractionField.ExtractionType) Enum.Parse(typeof(ExtractionField.ExtractionType), comboBox1.SelectedItem.ToString()); } public override string FormatValueForCaption() { return string.Empty; } The problem is that I have "generic" controls which inherit from CustomControlBase. These are just "views" with no logic. Then I have specific controls that inherit from the generic controls. I don't have any functions or business logic in the generic controls because the specific controls should govern how data is associated with the data structure. What is the best design pattern for this?

    Read the article

  • Anti-glare filter for touch enabled Netbook?

    - by chris
    Is it possible to put an anti-glare filter on a touch enabled Netbook without disabling the touch functionality? If yes, would it also be possible to remove the filter without damaging the screen? In my case it's an Acer 1420p (the PDC edition). It's a good machine but unfortunately you can also use it as a mirror.

    Read the article

  • LSP vs OCP / Liskov Substitution VS Open Close

    - by Kolyunya
    I am trying to understand the SOLID principles of OOP and I've come to the conclusion that LSP and OCP have some similarities (if not to say more). the open/closed principle states "software entities (classes, modules, functions, etc.) should be open for extension, but closed for modification". LSP in simple words states that any instance of Foo can be replaced with any instance of Bar which is derived from Foo and the program will work the same very way. I'm not a pro OOP programmer, but it seems to me that LSP is only possible if Bar, derived from Foo does not change anything in it but only extends it. That means that in particular program LSP is true only when OCP is true and OCP is true only if LSP is true. That means that they are equal. Correct me if I'm wrong. I really want to understand these ideas. Great thanks for an answer.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding the Anaemic Domain - How to decide what single responsibility a class has

    - by thecapsaicinkid
    Even after reading a bunch I'm still falling into the same trap. I have a class, usually an enity. I need to implement more than one, similar operations on this type. It feels wrong to (seemingly arbitrarily) choose one of these operations to belong inside the entity and push the others out to a separate class; I end up pushing all operations to service classes and am left with an anaemic domain. As a crude example, imagine the typical Employee class with numeric properties to hold how many paid days the employee is entitled to for both sickness and holiday and a collection of days taken for each. public class Employee { public int PaidHolidayAllowance { get; set; } public int PaidSicknessAllowance { get; set; } public IEnumerable<Holiday> Holidays { get; set; } public IEnumerable<SickDays> SickDays { get; set; } } I want two operations, one to calculate remaining holiday, another for remaining paid sick days. It seems strange to include say, CalculateRemaingHoliday() in the Employee class and bump CalculateRemainingPaidSick() to some PaidSicknessCalculator class. I would end up with a PaidSicknessCalculator and a RemainingHolidayCalculator and the anaemic Employee entity as seen above. The other alternative would be to put both operations in the Employee class and kick Single Responsibility to the curb. That doesn't make for particularly maintainable code. I suppose the Employee class should have some initialisation/validation logic (not accepting negative alowances etc.) So maybe I just stick to basic initialisation and validation in the entities themselves and be happy with my separate calculator classes. Or maybe I should be asking myself if Anaemic Domain is actually causing me some tangible problems with my code.

    Read the article

  • Anti-virus for windows 7 home premium

    - by Tamir
    Hi all I have a new laptop with Win 7 Home Premium. this machine came with already installed "MS Security Essentials" anti virus. I've installed on the laptop another protection "Symantec Endpoint Protection". I guess i don't need to have them both, so can you please tell me which one of them will be better so I'll remove the other? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Relationship between Repository and Unit of Work

    - by NullOrEmpty
    I am going to implement a repository, and I would like to use the UOW pattern since the consumer of the repository could do several operations, and I want to commit them at once. After read several articles about the matter, I still don't get how to relate this two elements, depending on the article it is being done in a way u other. Sometimes the UOW is something internal to the repository: public class Repository { UnitOfWork _uow; public Repository() { _uow = IoC.Get<UnitOfWork>(); } public void Save(Entity e) { _uow.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges() { SaveInStorage(_uow.GetChanges()); } } And sometimes it is external: public class Repository { public void Save(Entity e, UnitOfWork uow) { uow.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges(UnitOfWork uow) { SaveInStorage(uow.GetChanges()); } } Other times, is the UOW whom references the Repository public class UnitOfWork { Repository _repository; public UnitOfWork(Repository repository) { _repository = repository; } public void Save(Entity e) { this.Track(e); } public void SubmittChanges() { _repository.Save(this.GetChanges()); } } How are these two elements related? UOW tracks the elements that needs be changed, and repository contains the logic to persist those changes, but... who call who? Does the last make more sense? Also, who manages the connection? If several operations have to be done in the repository, I think using the same connection and even transaction is more sound, so maybe put the connection object inside the UOW and this one inside the repository makes sense as well. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

    - by Lumirris
    I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Avoid this and new - further reading? [closed]

    - by Thomas Deutsch
    I do not want this to end in a sort of religious discussion, i want to collect some sources for further reading on this topic. As shown here: Node.js Style and Structure Point 1: Avoid this and new you can find a good example when it could be better to use closures instead of a prototype, and to make every argument explicit. Ok, i agree - could be nice, but i need to know more. Can anyone recommend a good link? Would this make my code 100% object-pattern-free ? (no factory-, repository-, module- pattern?)

    Read the article

  • Help identify the pattern for reacting on updates

    - by Mike
    There's an entity that gets updated from external sources. Update events are at random intervals. And the entity has to be processed once updated. Multiple updates may be multiplexed. In other words there's a need for the most current state of entity to be processed. There's a point of no-return during processing where the current state (and the state is consistent i.e. no partial update is made) of entity is saved somewhere else and processing goes on independently of any arriving updates. Every consequent set of updates has to trigger processing i.e. system should not forget about updates. And for each entity there should be no more than one running processing (before the point of no-return) i.e. the entity state should not be processed more than once. So what I'm looking for is a pattern to cancel current processing before the point of no return or abandon processing results if an update arrives. The main challenge is to minimize race conditions and maintain integrity. The entity sits mainly in database with some files on disk. And the system is in .NET with web-services and message queues. What comes to my mind is a database queue-like table. An arriving update inserts row in that table and the processing is launched. The processing gathers necessary data before the point of no-return and once it reaches this barrier it looks into the queue table and checks whether there're more recent updates for the entity. If there are new updates the processing simply shuts down and its data is discarded. Otherwise the processing data is persisted and it goes beyond the point of no-return. Though it looks like a solution to me it is not quite elegant and I believe this scenario may be supported by some sort of middleware. If I would use message queues for this then there's a need to access the queue API in the point of no-return to check for the existence of new messages. And this approach also lacks elegance. Is there a name for this pattern and an existing solution?

    Read the article

  • Modular Database Structures

    - by John D
    I have been examining the code base we use in work and I am worried about the size the packages have grown to. The actual code is modular, procedures have been broken down into small functional (and testable) parts. The issue I see is that we have 100 procedures in a single package - almost an entire domain model. I had thought of breaking these packages down - to create sub domains that are centered around the procedure relationships to other objects. Group a bunch of procedures that have 80% of their relationships to three tables etc. The end result would be a lot more packages, but the packages would be smaller and I feel the entire code base would be more readable - when procedures cross between two domain models it is less of a struggle to figure which package it belongs to. The problem I now have is what the actual benefit of all this would really be. I looked at the general advantages of modularity: 1. Re-usability 2. Asynchronous Development 3. Maintainability Yet when I consider our latest development, the procedures within the packages are already reusable. At this advanced stage we rarely require asynchronous development - and when it is required we simply ladder the stories across iterations. So I guess my question is if people know of reasons why you would break down classes rather than just the methods inside of classes? Right now I do believe there is an issue with these mega packages forming but the only benefit I can really pin down to break them down is readability - something that experience gained from working with them would solve.

    Read the article

  • Optimal communication pattern to update subscribers

    - by hpc
    What is the optimal way to update the subscriber's local model on changes C on a central model M? ( M + C - M_c) The update can be done by the following methods: Publish the updated model M_c to all subscribers. Drawback: if the model is big in contrast to the change it results in much more data to be communicated. Publish change C to all subscribes. The subscribers will then update their local model in the same way as the server does. Drawback: The client needs to know the business logic to update the model in the same way as the server. It must be assured that the subscribed model stays equal to the central model. Calculate the delta (or patch) of the change (M_c - M = D_c) and transfer the delta. Drawback: This requires that calculating and applying the delta (M + D_c = M_c) is an cheap/easy operation. If a client newly subscribes it must be initialized. This involves sending the current model M. So method 1 is always required. Think of playing chess as a concrete example: Subscribers send moves and want to see the latest chess board state. The server checks validity of the move and applies it to the chess board. The server can then send the updated chessboard (method 1) or just send the move (method 2) or send the delta (method 3): remove piece on field D4, put tower on field D8.

    Read the article

  • Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented by definition?

    - by tieTYT
    Is the Entity Component System architecture object oriented, by definition? It seems more procedural or functional to me. My opinion is that it doesn't prevent you from implementing it in an OO language, but it would not be idiomatic to do so in a staunchly OO way. It seems like ECS separates data (E & C) from behavior (S). As evidence: The idea is to have no game methods embedded in the entity. And: The component consists of a minimal set of data needed for a specific purpose Systems are single purpose functions that take a set of entities which have a specific component I think this is not object oriented because a big part of being object oriented is combining your data and behavior together. As evidence: In contrast, the object-oriented approach encourages the programmer to place data where it is not directly accessible by the rest of the program. Instead, the data is accessed by calling specially written functions, commonly called methods, which are bundled in with the data. ECS, on the other hand, seems to be all about separating your data from your behavior.

    Read the article

  • When is a glue or management class doing too much?

    - by jprete
    I'm prone to building centralized classes that manage the other classes in my designs. It doesn't store everything itself, but most data requests would go to the "manager" first. While looking at an answer to this question I noticed the term "God Object". Wikipedia lists it as an antipattern, understandably. Where is the line between a legitimate glue class, or module, that passes data and messages from place to place, and a class that is doing too much?

    Read the article

  • Anti-spam measures for websites

    - by acidzombie24
    What are anti-spam measure I should consider before launching my user content website? Some things I have considered: Silent JavaScript based CAPTCHA on the register page (I do not have an implementation) Validate emails by forcing a confirmation link/number Allow X amount of comments per 10 minutes and Y per 2 hours (I am considering excited first time users who want to experience the site) Disallow link until user is trusted (I am not sure how a user will become trusted) Run all comments, messages, etc. through a spam filter. Check to see if messages are duplicate or similar (I may not bother with this. I'd like the system to be strong without this) I also timestamp everything which I then can retrieve as a long on my administrator page. What other measures can I take or consider?

    Read the article

  • Anti Aliasing dead

    - by Gazoza
    I have a problem with anti-aliasing. No matter the software settings, it seems to be gone. I tried driver updating and reinstalling, cleaning of the hardware, different monitor with different cablies, OS reinstalling and changing, none of which helped. I decided to change the graphic card, but that didn't work either. Moreover, I have a distinct impression that the jagged edges are worsening as time goes by. I think this is a hardware-related issue, but I don't know exactly what to do. If anyone here had similar troubles, and/or has an idea how to cope with them, I'd be very grateful. My current card is a nVidia GT610.

    Read the article

  • Session Report - Modern Software Development Anti-Patterns

    - by Janice J. Heiss
    In this standing-room-only session, building upon his 2011 JavaOne Rock Star “Diabolical Developer” session, Martijn Verburg, this time along with Ben Evans, identified and explored common “anti-patterns” – ways of doing things that keep developers from doing their best work. They emphasized the importance of social interaction and team communication, along with identifying certain psychological pitfalls that lead developers astray. Their emphasis was less on technical coding errors and more how to function well and to keep one’s focus on what really matters. They are the authors of the highly regarded The Well-Grounded Java Developer and are both movers and shakers in the London JUG community and on the Java Community Process. The large room was packed as they gave a fast-moving, witty presentation with lots of laughs and personal anecdotes. Below are a few of the anti-patterns they discussed.Anti-Pattern One: Conference-Driven DeliveryThe theme here is the belief that “Real pros hack code and write their slides minutes before their talks.” Their response to this anti-pattern is an expression popular in the military – PPPPPP, which stands for, “Proper preparation prevents piss-poor performance.”“Communication is very important – probably more important than the code you write,” claimed Verburg. “The more you speak in front of large groups of people the easier it gets, but it’s always important to do dry runs, to present to smaller groups. And important to be members of user groups where you can give presentations. It’s a great place to practice speaking skills; to gain new skills; get new contacts, to network.”They encouraged attendees to record themselves and listen to themselves giving a presentation. They advised them to start with a spouse or friends if need be. Learning to communicate to a group, they argued, is essential to being a successful developer. The emphasis here is that software development is a team activity and good, clear, accessible communication is essential to the functioning of software teams. Anti-Pattern Two: Mortgage-Driven Development The main theme here was that, in a period of worldwide recession and economic stagnation, people are concerned about keeping their jobs. So there is a tendency for developers to treat knowledge as power and not share what they know about their systems with their colleagues, so when it comes time to fix a problem in production, they will be the only one who knows how to fix it – and will have made themselves an indispensable cog in a machine so you cannot be fired. So developers avoid documentation at all costs, or if documentation is required, put it on a USB chip and lock it in a lock box. As in the first anti-pattern, the idea here is that communicating well with your colleagues is essential and documentation is a key part of this. Social interactions are essential. Both Verburg and Evans insisted that increasingly, year by year, successful software development is more about communication than the technical aspects of the craft. Developers who understand this are the ones who will have the most success. Anti-Pattern Three: Distracted by Shiny – Always Use the Latest Technology to Stay AheadThe temptation here is to pick out some obscure framework, try a bit of Scala, HTML5, and Clojure, and always use the latest technology and upgrade to the latest point release of everything. Don’t worry if something works poorly because you are ahead of the curve. Verburg and Evans insisted that there need to be sound reasons for everything a developer does. Developers should not bring in something simply because for some reason they just feel like it or because it’s new. They recommended a site run by a developer named Matt Raible with excellent comparison spread sheets regarding Web frameworks and other apps. They praised it as a useful tool to help developers in their decision-making processes. They pointed out that good developers sometimes make bad choices out of boredom, to add shiny things to their CV, out of frustration with existing processes, or just from a lack of understanding. They pointed out that some code may stay in a business system for 15 or 20 years, but not all code is created equal and some may change after 3 or 6 months. Developers need to know where the code they are contributing fits in. What is its likely lifespan? Anti-Pattern Four: Design-Driven Design The anti-pattern: If you want to impress your colleagues and bosses, use design patents left, right, and center – MVC, Session Facades, SOA, etc. Or the UML modeling suite from IBM, back in the day… Generate super fast code. And the more jargon you can talk when in the vicinity of the manager the better.Verburg shared a true story about a time when he was interviewing a guy for a job and asked him what his previous work was. The interviewee said that he essentially took patterns and uses an approved book of Enterprise Architecture Patterns and applied them. Verburg was dumbstruck that someone could have a job in which they took patterns from a book and applied them. He pointed out that the idea that design is a separate activity is simply wrong. He repeated a saying that he uses, “You should pay your junior developers for the lines of code they write and the things they add; you should pay your senior developers for what they take away.”He explained that by encouraging people to take things away, the code base gets simpler and reflects the actual business use cases developers are trying to solve, as opposed to the framework that is being imposed. He told another true story about a project to decommission a very long system. 98% of the code was decommissioned and people got a nice bonus. But the 2% remained on the mainframe so the 98% reduction in code resulted in zero reduction in costs, because the entire mainframe was needed to run the 2% that was left. There is an incentive to get rid of source code and subsystems when they are no longer needed. The session continued with several more anti-patterns that were equally insightful.

    Read the article

  • Should I pass the BrainBench Design patterns certification?

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    I have found Design patterns certification at the Brainbehch. I have heard from people who passed it, that there are many Language-specific patterns questions, mostly from Java and C++. I think that this certification can: force me to improve my skills on Object oriented design and design patterns; improve and structure my knowledge of the domain; give real estimate of my knowledge, which is useful issue itself The only confusion I have about this certification, is that I have to learn C++/Java language specific design patterns, while I mostly do PHP development and don't want to switch to C++/Java. I'm familiar with Java & C++ syntax, read lots of books about different subjects with code snippets in this programming languages. I think, that if I pass well all concepts except language specific patterns at certification, it won't be very good, because this concepts will gain quite low results. What would you recommend in this particular circumstance?

    Read the article

  • Wrappers/law of demeter seems to be an anti-pattern...

    - by Robert Fraser
    I've been reading up on this "Law of Demeter" thing, and it (and pure "wrapper" classes in general) seem to generally be anti patterns. Consider an implementation class: class Foo { void doSomething() { /* whatever */ } } Now consider two different implementations of another class: class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething() { _foo.doSomething(); } } And the ways to call said methods: callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(); // Version 2 } At first blush, version 1 seems a bit simpler, and follows the "rule of Demeter", hide Foo's implementation, etc, etc. But this ties any changes in Foo to Bar. For example, if a parameter is added to doSomething, then we have: class Foo { void doSomething(int x) { /* whatever */ } } class Bar1 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static Foo getFoo() { return _foo; } } class Bar2 { private static Foo _foo = new Foo(); public static void doSomething(int x) { _foo.doSomething(x); } } callingMethod() { Bar1.getFoo().doSomething(5); // Version 1 Bar2.doSomething(5); // Version 2 } In both versions, Foo and callingMethod need to be changed, but in Version 2, Bar also needs to be changed. Can someone explain the advantage of having a wrapper/facade (with the exception of adapters or wrapping an external API or exposing an internal one).

    Read the article

  • SSIS Design Patterns Training in London 8-11 Sep!

    - by andyleonard
    A few seats remain for my course SQL Server Integration Services 2012 Design Patterns to be delivered in London 8-11 Sep 2014. Register today to learn more about: New features in SSIS 2012 and 2014 Advanced patterns for loading data warehouses Error handling The (new) Project Deployment Model Scripting in SSIS The (new) SSIS Catalog Designing custom SSIS tasks Executing, managing, monitoring, and administering SSIS in the enterprise Business Intelligence Markup Language (Biml) BimlScript ETL Instrumentation...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How can I make non-anti-aliased text look good in Firefox on Mac OS X?

    - by cosmic.osmo
    After being a Windows user for the last 10 years, I got a MacBook Pro, which I'm working on configuring to my liking. I find small-size anti-aliased text to be blurry and hard to read, so I typically disable it. I've found the settings in the General Control Panel, and used TinkerTool to increase the anti-alias threshold size to 18pt. Mac OS X and other applications appear to respect these settings. A problem appears when I use Firefox. By default, it's configured to ignore the Mac OS anti-alias settings. This is changed by going to about:config, and setting gfx.use_text_smoothing_setting = true (default is false). However, even with this setting, it appears Firefox is still rendering the fonts under the assumption that they will be anti-aliased, which results in very odd and uneven spacing, as you can see in this example (pay attention to the placement of the "s" in "Disable"): With anti-aliasing: Without anti-aliasing: How can I configure Firefox to both not use anti-aliasing and to use correct font spacing? I'm using Mac OS X Lion and Firefox 5.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >