Search Results

Search found 13692 results on 548 pages for 'bad practices'.

Page 44/548 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Should I modify an entity with many parameters or with the entity itself?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    We have a SOA-based system. The service methods are like: UpdateEntity(Entity entity) For small entities, it's all fine. However, when entities get bigger and bigger, to update one property we should follow this pattern in UI: Get parameters from UI (user) Create an instance of the Entity, using those parameters Get the entity from service Write code to fill the unchanged properties Give the result entity to the service Another option that I've experienced in previous experiences is to create semantic update methods for each update scenario. In other words instead of having one global all-encompasing update method, we had many ad-hoc parametric methods. For example, for the User entity, instead of having UpdateUser (User user) method, we had these methods: ChangeUserPassword(int userId, string newPassword) AddEmailToUserAccount(int userId, string email) ChangeProfilePicture(int userId, Image image) ... Now, I don't know which method is truly better, and for each approach, we encounter problems. I mean, I'm going to design the infrastructure for a new system, and I don't have enough reasons to pick any of these approaches. I couldn't find good resources on the Internet, because of the lack of keywords I could provide. What approach is better? What pitfalls each has? What benefits can we get from each one?

    Read the article

  • Generalise variable usage inside code

    - by Shirish11
    I would like to know if it is a good practice to generalize variables (use single variable to store all the values). Consider simple example Strings querycre,queryins,queryup,querydel; querycre = 'Create table XYZ ...'; execute querycre ; queryins = 'Insert into XYZ ...'; execute queryins ; queryup = 'Update XYZ set ...'; execute queryup; querydel = 'Delete from XYZ ...'; execute querydel ; and Strings query; query= 'Create table XYZ ... '; execute query ; query= 'Insert into XYZ ...'; execute query ; query= 'Update XYZ set ...'; execute query ; query= 'Delete from XYZ ...'; execute query ; In first case I use 4 strings each storing data to perform the actions mentioned in their suffixes. In second case just 1 variable to store all kinds the data. Having different variables makes it easier for someone else to read and understand it better. But having too many of them makes it difficult to manage. Also does having too many variables hamper my performance?

    Read the article

  • Android: Layouts and views or a single full screen custom view?

    - by futlib
    I'm developing an Android game, and I'm making it so that it can run on low end devices without GPU, so I'm using the 2D API. I have so far tried to use Android's mechanisms such as layouts and activities where possible, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's not easier to just create a single custom view (or one per activity) and do all the work there. Here's an example of how I currently do things: I'm using a layout to display the game's background as an image view and the square game area, which is a custom view, centered in the middle. What would you say? Should I continue to use layouts where possible or is it more common/reasonable to just use a large custom view? I'm thinking that this would probably also make it easier to port my code to other platforms.

    Read the article

  • What use is a Business Logic Layer (BLL)?

    - by Andrew S. Arnold
    In reading up on good practice for database applications I've frequently come across advocates of so-called "business logic layers" and I'm trying to decide if it's best for my project to use one (it's a small personal project). My issue lies in the fact that I can't think of anything for the BLL to do that the DAL can't already handle (executing queries and mapping results to objects), so my BLL just calls the DAL without doing anything itself. Maybe I'm wrong about exactly what the DAL should be doing too. But regardless, what sorts of functionality should be expected of a BLL in a database management application?

    Read the article

  • How can I optimize my development machines files/dirs?

    - by LuxuryMode
    Like any programmer, I've got a lot of stuff on my machine. Some of that stuff is projects of my own, some are projects I'm working on for my employer, others are open-source tools and projects, etc. Currently, I have my files organized as follows: /Code --/development (things I'm sort of hacking on plus maybe libraries used in other projects) --/scala (organized by language...why? I don't know!) --/android --/ruby --/employer_name -- /mobile --/android --/ios --/open-source (basically my forks that I'm pushing commits back upstream from) --/some-awesome-oss-project --/another-awesome-one --/tools random IDE settings sprinkled in here plus some other apps As you can see, things are kind of a mess here. How can I keep things organized in some sort of coherent fashion?

    Read the article

  • More than one way to skin an Audit

    - by BuckWoody
    I get asked quite a bit about auditing in SQL Server. By "audit", people mean everything from tracking logins to finding out exactly who ran a particular SELECT statement. In the really early versions of SQL Server, we didn't have a great story for very granular audits, so lots of workarounds were suggested. As time progressed, more and more audit capabilities were added to the product, and in typical database platform fashion, as we added a feature we didn't often take the others away. So now, instead of not having an option to audit actions by users, you might face the opposite problem - too many ways to audit! You can read more about the options you have for tracking users here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280526(v=SQL.100).aspx  In SQL Server 2008, we introduced SQL Server Audit, which uses Extended Events to really get a simple way to implement high-level or granular auditing. You can read more about that here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd392015.aspx  As with any feature, you should understand what your needs are first. Auditing isn't "free" in the performance sense, so you need to make sure you're only auditing what you need to. Share this post: email it! | bookmark it! | digg it! | reddit! | kick it! | live it!

    Read the article

  • rel="nofollow" SEO impact

    - by Torez
    I saw a technique used where there was a block with three parts: 1. Image (wrapped in an anchor tag) 2. Heading (anchor tag with heading text) 3. Paragraph (regular p tag with synopsis content) e.g. <li class="block"> <a rel="nofollow" class="thumb" href="#"><img src="images/placeholder_service_thumbnail.jpg" alt="" /></a> <a class="h3" href="#"Good SEO Heading</a> <pPellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Vestibulum tortor quam, feugiat vitae, ultricies eget, tempor sit amet, ante. Donec eu...</p> </li> With the image tag there was a rel="nofollow" on the wrapped anchor tag. So the idea is that the users still has the ability to click the image and go to the details page, but the image link does not rank. When users click on the heading text, that is only what ranks for that specific page. Q: Is this the correct approach? Does this even do anything? What is the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Hosting several HTTP servers on single domain name

    - by Nakilon
    Several people have got a single domain name server.company.com server, where they are now supposed to host their infrastructure or temporal projects, written in different ways even in different programming languages. How do they divide the domain? Split into subdomains: john.server.company.com, kate.server.company.com, etc. This would need a lot of admins' assistance, time, etc. -- there would be no way for John and Kate to do it themselves. Split into url namespaces: server.company.com/john/, server.company.com/kate/, etc. Pro: They now can make a single welcome page at root with any additional info (if they need?) Con: Each server would need to know their namespace string constant, and hrefs like / whould need patching. Split into ports: server.company.com:8080, server.company.com:8081, etc. and make a single :80 welcome page. Pro: They still can make a single welcome page at :80 Con: ??? I would like to know more pros and cons for 2 and 3 solution.

    Read the article

  • Is there a good example of the difference between practice and theory?

    - by a_person
    There has been a lot of posters advising that the best way to retain knowledge is to apply it practically. After ignoring said advice for several years in a futile attempt to accumulate enough theoretical knowledge to be prepared for every possible case scenario, the process which lead me to assembling a library that's easily worth ~6K, I finally get it. I would like to share my story in the hopes that others will avoid taking the same route that was taken by me. I've selected graphical format (photos with caption to be exact) as my media. Help me with your ideas, maybe a fragment of code, or other imagery that would convey a message of the inherent difference between practice and theory.

    Read the article

  • Absolute Top Programming Tips [closed]

    - by Eric
    I'm very intersted in the stuff that REALLY makes a critical difference to career in programming, other than intrinsic stuff like how smart your are, where you were born, etc... Some ideas: 1) Best approach to managing small, medium, and large teams. 2) Most important books to read. 3) Most important skills to know. 4) Correct balance of learning theory vs. just writing code. 5) A good approach to estimating time and cost of a project. 6) Etc... Please limit your answers. If you see somebody has already written your idea, please just vote for their response. I'd like to see what the community thinks are the true indicators of a successful career in our field.

    Read the article

  • Should one comment differently in functional languages

    - by Tom Squires
    I'm just getting started with functional programming and I'm wondering the correct way to comment my code. It seems a little redundant to comment a short function as the names and signature already should tell you everything you need to know. Commenting larger functions also seems a little redundant since they are generally comprised of smaller self-descriptive functions. What is the correct way to comment a functional program? Should I use the same approach as in iterative programming?

    Read the article

  • Methods of ordering function definitions in code

    - by xralf
    When I work on some programming project (usually command line application in Python with many switches), I'm usually creating about 30 and more functions. Most of the functions are in one file (except some helpers that I utilize in more projects). Some of the functions are called on particular switch (like -p or --print) but many functions do some helper computations, print operations or database operations because I don't want to main functions be too large. When I have an idea for a new functionality I often put new functions randomly to the file. Should I think more about it and place it to some particular place? Are there some methods for this?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between industrial development and open source development?

    - by Ida
    Intuitively, I think open source development should be much more "casual" than industrial development process (like in Microsoft). Because for OSS development: Duty separation is not that strict than in big companies (maybe developers == testers in open source development?) People come in and out of the open source community, much more frequently than in big companies However, above are just my guesses. I really want to know more about the major difference between the open source and industrial development. Is their division of duty totally different (e.g., is there a leader/manager-like role in open source development?)? Maybe it is their communication style that differs a lot? Or their workflow? Please share your opinions. Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • BDD: Getting started

    - by thom
    I'm starting with BDD and this is my story: Feature: Months and days to days In order to see months and days as days As a date conversion fan I need a webpage where users can enter days and months and convert them to days. I have some doubts ... Should I write my scenarios before coding anything or should I first write a scenario and then write code, write a scenario again and then write code, and so on ... ? If I should write my scenarios before, can my steps be approved and production code still does not get done? When should I do refactoring on my code? After the feature is done or after each scenario implementation?

    Read the article

  • Motivation and use of move constructors in C++

    - by Giorgio
    I recently have been reading about move constructors in C++ (see e.g. here) and I am trying to understand how they work and when I should use them. As far as I understand, a move constructor is used to alleviate the performance problems caused by copying large objects. The wikipedia page says: "A chronic performance problem with C++03 is the costly and unnecessary deep copies that can happen implicitly when objects are passed by value." I normally address such situations by passing the objects by reference, or by using smart pointers (e.g. boost::shared_ptr) to pass around the object (the smart pointers get copied instead of the object). What are the situations in which the above two techniques are not sufficient and using a move constructor is more convenient?

    Read the article

  • Stuff you learned in school, that you have never used again?

    - by Mercfh
    Obviously we learn plenty of things in our University/College/Whatever that probably don't apply to everyday use, but is there anything that stands out particularly? Maybe something that was concentrated ALOT on? For me it was def. 2 things: OO Concepts and Pointers I still use OO, but not nearly to the amount people made it out to be, i can see where it'd be useful but in my line of work we don't have huge amounts of classes, maybe a couple at most. And there certainly isn't much OO reuse (i finally figured out what that means lol) Pointers are another thing, again I can see where they'd be useful...however I barely barely ever touch them, nor do the others I work with. I guess language choice has alot to do with that but still. What about you guys? edit: For those who are asking I work for a Large Printer company, and most of the Applications we work on are Java+XML and Actionscript for "Printer Apps". But we are moving towards other languages (think like webkits and stuff). So the Code amounts per parts are quite small. I never say OO wasn't useful I just said I personally havent seen it used in my workplace much.

    Read the article

  • How to become a good team player?

    - by Nick
    I've been programming (obsessively) since I was 12. I am fairly knowledgeable across the spectrum of languages out there, from assembly, to C++, to Javascript, to Haskell, Lisp, and Qi. But all of my projects have been by myself. I got my degree in chemical engineering, not CS or computer engineering, but for the first time this fall I'll be working on a large programming project with other people, and I have no clue how to prepare. I've been using Windows all of my life, but this project is going to be very unix-y, so I purchased a Mac recently in the hopes of familiarizing myself with the environment. I was fortunate to participate in a hackathon with some friends this past year -- both CS majors -- and excitingly enough, we won. But I realized as I worked with them that their workflow was very different from mine. They used Git for version control. I had never used it at the time, but I've since learned all that I can about it. They also used a lot of frameworks and libraries. I had to learn what Rails was pretty much overnight for the hackathon (on the other hand, they didn't know what lexical scoping or closures were). All of our code worked well, but they didn't understand mine, and I didn't understand theirs. I hear references to things that real programmers do on a daily basis -- unit testing, code reviews, but I only have the vaguest sense of what these are. I normally don't have many bugs in my little projects, so I have never needed a bug tracking system or tests for them. And the last thing is that it takes me a long time to understand other people's code. Variable naming conventions (that vary with each new language) are difficult (__mzkwpSomRidicAbbrev), and I find the loose coupling difficult. That's not to say I don't loosely couple things -- I think I'm quite good at it for my own work, but when I download something like the Linux kernel or the Chromium source code to look at it, I spend hours trying to figure out how all of these oddly named directories and files connect. It's a programming sin to reinvent the wheel, but I often find it's just quicker to write up the functionality myself than to spend hours dissecting some library. Obviously, people who do this for a living don't have these problems, and I'll need to get to that point myself. Question: What are some steps that I can take to begin "integrating" with everyone else? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • WEBCAST: Strategies for Managing the Oracle Database Lifecycle

    - by Scott McNeil
    Thursday November 110:00 a.m. PST / 1:00 p.m. EST Join us for a live Webcast and see how Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c makes database lifecycle management easier. You’ll learn how to: Simplify database configurations thanks to extensive automation for discovery and change detection Improve IT service levels with Oracle’s next-generation database patching and provisioning automation Ensure consistency and compliance with comprehensive database change management Register today. Stay Connected: Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Linkedin | NewsletterDownload the Oracle Enterprise Manager Cloud Control12c Mobile app

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to make an iterator that is aware of its own end

    - by aaronman
    For some background of why I am asking this question here is an example. In python the method chain chains an arbitrary number of ranges together and makes them into one without making copies. Here is a link in case you don't understand it. I decided I would implement chain in c++ using variadic templates. As far as I can tell the only way to make an iterator for chain that will successfully go to the next container is for each iterator to to know about the end of the container (I thought of a sort of hack in where when != is called against the end it will know to go to the next container, but the first way seemed easier and safer and more versatile). My question is if there is anything inherently wrong with an iterator knowing about its own end, my code is in c++ but this can be language agnostic since many languages have iterators. #ifndef CHAIN_HPP #define CHAIN_HPP #include "iterator_range.hpp" namespace iter { template <typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter; template <typename Container> struct chain_iter<Container> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end;//never really used but kept it for consistency public: chain_iter(Container & container, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()),end(container.end()) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { ++begin; return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { return *begin; } bool operator!=(const chain_iter & rhs) const{ return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename Container, typename ... Containers> struct chain_iter<Container,Containers...> { private: using Iterator = decltype(((Container*)nullptr)->begin()); Iterator begin; const Iterator end; bool end_reached = false; chain_iter<Containers...> next_iter; public: chain_iter(Container & container, Containers& ... rest, bool is_end=false) : begin(container.begin()), end(container.end()), next_iter(rest...,is_end) { if(is_end) begin = container.end(); } chain_iter & operator++() { if (begin == end) { ++next_iter; } else { ++begin; } return *this; } auto operator*()->decltype(*begin) { if (begin == end) { return *next_iter; } else { return *begin; } } bool operator !=(const chain_iter & rhs) const { if (begin == end) { return this->next_iter != rhs.next_iter; } else return this->begin != rhs.begin; } }; template <typename ... Containers> iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>> chain(Containers& ... containers) { auto begin = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...); auto end = chain_iter<Containers...>(containers...,true); return iterator_range<chain_iter<Containers...>>(begin,end); } } #endif //CHAIN_HPP

    Read the article

  • Why to say, my function is of IFly type rather than saying it's Airplane type

    - by Vishwas Gagrani
    Say, I have two classes: Airplane and Bird, both of them fly. Both implement the interface IFly. IFly declares a function StartFlying(). Thus both Airplane and Bird have to define the function, and use it as per their requirement. Now when I make a manual for class reference, what should I write for the function StartFlying? 1) StartFlying is a function of type IFly . 2) StartFlying is a function of type Airplane 3) StartFlying is a function of type Bird. My opinion is 2 and 3 are more informative. But what i see is that class references use the 1st one. They say what interface the function is declared in. Problem is, I really don't get any usable information from knowing StartFlying is IFly type. However, knowing that StartFlying is a function inside Airplane and Bird, is more informative, as I can decide which instance (Airplane or Bird ) to use. Any lights on this: how saying StartFlying is a function of type IFly, can help a programmer understanding how to use the function?

    Read the article

  • Code to simulate a users actions, such as logging in

    - by Gortron
    I've recently begun working on a PHP application, replacing another developer. I believed the application was using an API to communicate with a remote service but when I looked through the code I found that it was using a set of functions to actually log in, fill out forms and submit them as a user might do in a browser. My intention is to replace this code, to use the services API instead. I've considered leaving the code as is and not replace it. It makes me wonder though is this a common practice in the software industry? To have a programme simulate a users actions in a browser to perform a set of actions? It feels to me that this is clever but poor programming, Have any other developers seen this?

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of 'high cohesion'?

    - by Max
    I am a student who recently joined a software development company as an intern. Back at the university, one of my professors used to say that we have to strive to achieve "Low coupling and high cohesion". I understand the meaning of low coupling. It means to keep the code of separate components separately, so that a change in one place does not break the code in another. But what is meant by high cohesion. If it means integrating the various pieces of the same component well with each other, I dont understand how that becomes advantageous. What is meant by high cohesion? Can an example be explained to understand its benefits?

    Read the article

  • Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

    - by Ilian Pinzon
    This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

    Read the article

  • "Opportunity" to take over maintenance of a small internal website. What should I do?

    - by Dan
    I have been offered an "opportunity" to take over maintenance of a small internal website run by my group that provides information about schedules and photos of events the groups done. My manager sent me the link to the site and checked it out. The site looked clean and neat but loaded in ~5 seconds. I thought this was a little long considering the site really didn't contain a lot of content. This prompted me to take a look under the hood at the pages source code. To my horror it'd been totally hacked together using nested tables! I'm new so I really can't say no to this "opportunity" so what should I do with it? Every fiber of my being feels that the only correct thing to do is over hall the site using CSS, Div's, Span's and any other appropriate tags that a sane/good web developer would used to begin with instead of depending on the render incentive magic of tables. But I'd like to ask programmers with more experienced then me, who have been in this situation. What should I do? Is my only realistic option to leave the horror as is and only adjusting the content as requested? I'm really torn between good development and the corporate reality I'm part of. Is there some kind of middle ground where things can be made better even if they're not perfect? Thanks ahead of time.

    Read the article

  • Quick Tip - Speed a Slow Restore from the Transaction Log

    - by KKline
    Here's a quick tip for you: During some restore operations on Microsoft SQL Server, the transaction log redo step might be taking an unusually long time. Depending somewhat on the version and edition of SQL Server you've installed, you may be able to increase performance by tinkering with the readahead performance for the redo operations. To do this, you should use the MAXTRANSFERSIZE parameter of the RESTORE statement. For example, if you set MAXTRANSFERSIZE=1048576, it'll use 1MB buffers. If you...(read more)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >