Search Results

Search found 41998 results on 1680 pages for 'oracle best practices'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 437/1680 | < Previous Page | 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444  | Next Page >

  • how to organize classes in ruby if they are literal subclasses

    - by RetroNoodle
    I know that title didn't make sense, Im sorry! Its hard to word what I am trying to ask. I had trouble googling it for the same reason. So this isn't even Ruby specific, but I am working in ruby and I am new to it, so bear with me. So you have a class that is a document. Inside each document, you have sentences, and each sentence has words. Words will have properties, like "noun" or a count of how many times they are used in the document, etc. I would like each of the elements, document, sentence, word be an object. Now, if you think literally - sentences are in documents, and words are in sentences. Should this be organized literally like this as well? Like inside the document class you will define and instantiate the sentence objects, and inside the sentence class you will define and instantiate the words? Or, should everything be separate and reference each other? Like the word class would sit outside the sentence class but the sentence class would be able to instantiate and work with words? This is a basic OOP question I guess, and I suppose you could argue to do it either way. What do you guys think? Each sentence in the document could be stored in a hash of sentence objects inside the document object, and each word in the sentence could be stored in a hash of word objects inside the sentence. I dont want to code myself into a corner here, thats why I am asking, plus I have wondered this before in other situations. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Foreach loop and tasks.

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    I know from the codeing guidlines that I have read you should not do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(i)); } Console.ReadLine(); as it will write 5 5's, I understand that and I think i understand why it is happening. I know the solution is just to do for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { int localI = i; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Console.WriteLine(localI)); } Console.ReadLine(); However is something like this ok to do? foreach (MyClass myClass in myClassList) { Task.Factory.StartNew(() => myClass.DoAction()); } Console.ReadLine(); Or do I need to do the same thing I did in the for loop. foreach (MyClass myClass in myClassList) { MyClass localMyClass = myClass; Task.Factory.StartNew(() => localMyClass.DoAction()); } Console.ReadLine();

    Read the article

  • Correct approach to validate attributes of an instance of class

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

    Read the article

  • group by country with ActiveRecords in Rails

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

    Read the article

  • Exception handling pattern

    - by treefrog
    It is a common pattern I see where the error codes associated with an exception are stored as Static final ints. when the exception is created to be thrown, it is constructed with one of these codes along with an error message. This results in the method that is going to catch it having to look at the code and then decide on a course of action. The alternative seems to be- declare a class for EVERY exception error case Is there a middle ground ? what is the recommended method ?

    Read the article

  • Boost shared_ptr use_count function

    - by photo_tom
    My application problem is the following - I have a large structure foo. Because these are large and for memory management reasons, we do not wish to delete them when processing on the data is complete. We are storing them in std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<foo>>. My question is related to knowing when all processing is complete. First decision is that we do not want any of the other application code to mark a complete flag in the structure because there are multiple execution paths in the program and we cannot predict which one is the last. So in our implementation, once processing is complete, we delete all copies of boost::shared_ptr<foo>> except for the one in the vector. This will drop the reference counter in the shared_ptr to 1. Is it practical to use shared_ptr.use_count() to see if it is equal to 1 to know when all other parts of my app are done with the data. One additional reason I'm asking the question is that the boost documentation on the shared pointer shared_ptr recommends not using "use_count" for production code.

    Read the article

  • Why is 'using namespace std;' considered a bad practice in C++?

    - by Mana
    Okay, sorry for the simplistic question, but this has been bugging me ever since I finished high school C++ last year. I've been told by others on numerous occasions that my teacher was wrong in saying that we should have "using namespace std;" in our programs, and that std::cout and std::cin are more proper. However, they would always be vague as to why this is a bad practice. So, I'm asking now: Why is "using namespace std;" considered bad? Is it really that inefficient, or risk declaring ambiguous vars(variables that share the same name as a function in std namespace) that much? Or does this impact program performance noticeably as you get into writing larger applications? I'm sorry if this is something I should have googled to solve; I figured it would be nice to have this question on here regardless in case anyone else was wondering.

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Efficiently store last X items in an MySQL Database

    - by Saif Bechan
    I want to store the last 3 items in an MySQL database in an efficient way. So when the 4th item is stored the first should be deleted. The way I do this not is first run a query getting the items. Than check what I should do then insert/delete. There has to be a better way to do this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Using Is/As Operator

    - by Swim
    I have factory that looks something like the following snippet. Foo is a wrapper class for Bar and in most cases (but not all), there is a 1:1 mapping. As a rule, Bar cannot know anything about Foo, yet Foo takes an instance of Bar. Is there a better/cleaner approach to doing this? public Foo Make( Bar obj ) { if( obj is Bar1 ) return new Foo1( obj as Bar1 ); if( obj is Bar2 ) return new Foo2( obj as Bar2 ); if( obj is Bar3 ) return new Foo3( obj as Bar3 ); if( obj is Bar4 ) return new Foo3( obj as Bar4 ); // same wrapper as Bar3 throw new ArgumentException(); } At first glance, this question might look like a duplicate (maybe it is), but I haven't seen one exactly like it. Here is one that is close, but not quite: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/242097/factory-based-on-typeof-or-is-a

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to violate the principle that collection properties should be readonly for performance?

    - by uriDium
    I used FxCop to analyze some code I had written. I had exposed a collection via a setter. I understand why this is not good. Changing the backing store when I don't expect it is a very bad idea. Here is my problem though. I retrieve a list of business objects from a Data Access Object. I then need to add that collection to another business class and I was doing it with the setter method. The reason I did this was that it is going to be faster to make an assignment than to insert hundreds of thousands of objects one at a time to the collection again via another addElement method. Is it okay to have a getter for a collection in some scenarios? I though of rather having a constructor which takes a collection? I thought maybe I could pass the object in to the Dao and let the Dao populate it directly? Are there any other better ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to restrict user from modifying data in mysql data base?

    - by Paul
    We need to deploy application(developed by Java) WAR file in client place which make use of MySql 5.0. But we would like to restrict the user from modifying any data in the database. Is there any way to protect data. The client can make use of the application but they should not be able to change any value in database. How to do that?

    Read the article

  • Will this be garbage collected in JVM?

    - by stjowa
    I am running the following code every two minutes via a Timer: object = new Object(this); Potentially, this is a lot of objects being created and a lot of objects being overwritten. Do the overwritten objects get garbage collected, even with a reference to itself being used in the newly created object? I am using JDK 1.6.0_13. Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Global State and Singletons Dependency injection

    - by Manu
    this is a problem i face lot of times when i am designing a new app i'll use a sample problem to explain this think i am writing simple game.so i want to hold a list of players. i have few options.. 1.use a static field in some class private static ArrayList<Player> players = new ArrayList<Integer>(); public Player getPlayer(int i){ return players.get(i); } but this a global state 2.or i can use a singleton class PlayerList{ private PlayerList instance; private PlayerList(){...} public PlayerList getInstance() { if(instance==null){ ... } return instance; } } but this is bad because it's a singleton 3.Dependency injection class Game { private PlayerList playerList; public Game(PlayerList list) { this.list = list; } public PlayerList getPlayerList() { return playerList; } } this seems good but it's not, if any object outside Game need to look at PlayerList (which is the usual case) i have to use one of the above methods to make the Game class available globally. so I just add another layer to the problem. didn't actually solve anything. what is the optimum solution ? (currently i use Singleton approach)

    Read the article

  • SQL - when should you use "with (nolock)"

    - by Andy White
    Can someone explain the implications of using "with (nolock)" on queries, when you should/shouldn't use it? For example, if you have a banking application with high transaction rates and a lot of data in certain tables, in what types of queries would nolock be okay? Are there cases when you should always use it/never use it?

    Read the article

  • new Integer vs valueOf

    - by LB
    Hi, I was using Sonar to make my code cleaner, and it pointed that I'm using new Integer(1) instead of Integer.valueOf(1). Because it seems that valueOf does not instantiate a new object so is more memory-friendly. How can valueOf not instantiate a new object ? How does it work ? Is this true for all integers ? thanks.

    Read the article

  • When using out parameters in a function, is it good practice to initialize them in the function?

    - by adambox
    I have a function that uses out parameters to return multiple values to the caller. I would like to initialize them in the function, but I wasn't sure if that's a bad idea since you don't know when you call the function that it's going to change the values right away. The caller might assume that after the function returns, if whatever it was doing didn't work, the values would be whatever they were initialized to in the caller. Is it ok / good for me to initialize in the function? Example: public static void SomeFunction(int ixID, out string sSomething) { sSomething = ""; sSomething = something(ixID); if (sSomething = "") { somethingelse(); sSomething = "bar" } }

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444  | Next Page >