Search Results

Search found 43093 results on 1724 pages for 'oracle best practice'.

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 459/1724 | < Previous Page | 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466  | Next Page >

  • What is a 'better' approach to query/save from server: DTO or Wcf Data Services?

    - by bonefisher
    From my perspective, the Data Services and their query approach is useful when querying simple object graphs from your server-side domain model. But when you want to query complex dependencies I couldn't create anything good out of it. The classic DTO approach is fine-grained and can handle everything, but the downside is that you have to create Dto classes for every type of server-request which is time consuming and you have to synchronize the Dto type with your domain entity/business logic.

    Read the article

  • Doing a ajax / json add to database, and have a "wait doing operation" icon

    - by Dejan.S
    Hi. I got a part on my page I want to improve. It's a file upload that users can add their contacts from files like excel, csv & outlook. I read the contacts and place them in the database, so what I would like to do is to have a regular icon that spins while that operation is doing that, how could I do that? Ajax? I don't want progress bar for the file upload but the operation for reading the file EDIT: I want to know how to make this work with the add to database using ajax. like should I use a updatepanel? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is this 2D array initialization a bad idea?

    - by Brendan Long
    I have something I need a 2D array for, but for better cache performance, I'd rather have it actually be a normal array. Here's the idea I had but I don't know if it's a terrible idea: const int XWIDTH = 10, YWIDTH = 10; int main(){ int * tempInts = new int[XWIDTH * YWIDTH]; int ** ints = new int*[XWIDTH]; for(int i=0; i<XWIDTH; i++){ ints[i] = &tempInts[i*YWIDTH]; } // do things with ints delete[] ints[0]; delete[] ints; return 0; } So the idea is that instead of newing a bunch of arrays (and having them placed in different places in memory), I just point to an array I made all at once. The reason for the delete[] (int*) ints; is because I'm actually doing this in a class and it would save [trivial amounts of] memory to not save the original pointer. Just wondering if there's any reasons this is a horrible idea. Or if there's an easier/better way. The goal is to be able to access the array as ints[x][y] rather than ints[x*YWIDTH+y].

    Read the article

  • how to minimize application downtime when updating database and application ORM

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Are regexes really maintainable?

    - by Rich Bradshaw
    Any code I've seen that uses Regexes tends to use them as a black box: Put in string Magic Regex Get out string This doesn't seem a particularly good idea to use in production code, as even a small change can often result in a completely different regex. Apart from cases where the standard is permanent and unchanging, are regexes the way to do things, or is it better to try different methods?

    Read the article

  • small scale web site - global javascript file style/format/pattern - improving maintainability

    - by yaya3
    I frequently create (and inherit) small to medium websites where I have the following sort of code in a single file (normally named global.js or application.js or projectname.js). If functions get big, I normally put them in a seperate file, and call them at the bottom of the file below in the $(document).ready() section. If I have a few functions that are unique to certain pages, I normally have another switch statement for the body class inside the $(document).ready() section. How could I restructure this code to make it more maintainable? Note: I am less interested in the functions innards, more so the structure, and how different types of functions should be dealt with. I've also posted the code here - http://pastie.org/999932 in case it makes it any easier var ProjectNameEnvironment = {}; function someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable () { $('.foo').hide(); $('.bar').click(function(){ $('.foo').show(); }); } function functionThatIsWorthMakingConfigurable(config) { var foo = config.foo || 700; var bar = 200; return foo * bar; } function globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger (tooltip_string) { var tooltipTrigger = $(tooltip_string); tooltipTrigger.tooltip({ showURL: false ... }); } function minorUtilityOneLiner (selector) { $(selector).find('li:even').not('li ul li').addClass('even'); } var Lightbox = {}; Lightbox.setup = function(){ $('li#foo a').attr('href','#alpha'); $('li#bar a').attr('href','#beta'); } Lightbox.init = function (config){ if (typeof $.fn.fancybox =='function') { Lightbox.setup(); var fade_in_speed = config.fade_in_speed || 1000; var frame_height = config.frame_height || 1700; $(config.selector).fancybox({ frameHeight : frame_height, callbackOnShow: function() { var content_to_load = config.content_to_load; ... }, callbackOnClose : function(){ $('body').height($('body').height()); } }); } else { if (ProjectNameEnvironment.debug) { alert('the fancybox plugin has not been loaded'); } } } // ---------- order of execution ----------- $(document).ready(function () { urls = urlConfig(); (function globalFunctions() { $('.tooltip-trigger').each(function(){ globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger(this); }); minorUtilityOneLiner('ul.foo') Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#a-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#another-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); })(); if ( $('body').attr('id') == 'home-page' ) { (function homeFunctions() { someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable (); })(); } });

    Read the article

  • Why are there magic attributes exposed in the Servlet spec?

    - by Brabster
    It's always seemed a little at odds with the principles of Java that the Java Servlet Spec (2.5 version here) includes a set of magic attributes containing info about included resources, namely: javax.servlet.include.request_uri javax.servlet.include.context_path javax.servlet.include.servlet_path javax.servlet.include.path_info javax.servlet.include.query_string It's not even specifically pointed out in the API documentation, only in the spec where it is a must for correct implementation. This approach feels very wrong, an exposed implementation detail that clients will use and depend on. Why is this information exposed in this way?

    Read the article

  • Javascript clarity of purpose

    - by JesDaw
    Javascript usage has gotten remarkably more sophisticated and powerful in the past five years. One aspect of this sort of functional programming I struggle with, esp with Javascript’s peculiarities, is how to make clear either through comments or code just what is happening. Often this sort of code takes a while to decipher, even if you understand the prototypal, first-class functional Javascript way. Any thoughts or techniques for making perfectly clear what your code does and how in Javascript? I've asked this question elsewhere, but haven't gotten much response.

    Read the article

  • How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

    - by Support - multilanguage SO
    For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

    Read the article

  • How to solve the "Growing If Statement" problem?

    - by Achilles
    I've been doing some reading about design patterns and wanted some perspective. Consider the following: Dim objGruntWorker as IGruntWorker if SomeCriteria then objGruntWorker = new GoFor() else if SomeOtherCriteria then objGruntWorker = new Newb() else if SomeCriteriaAndTheKitchenSink then objGruntWorker = new CubeRat() end if objGruntWorker.GetBreakfast() system.threading.thread.sleep(GetMilliSecondsFromHours(4)) objGruntWorker.GetLunch() The above code grows each time a new Criteria arises. I've seen code like this all over the place and in ignorance wrote some of it myself. How should this be solved? Does this kind of anti-pattern have a more "formal" name? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • How should my team decide between 3-tier and 2-tier architectures?

    - by j0rd4n
    My team is discussing the future direction we take our projects. Half the team believes in a pure 3-tier architecture while the other half favors a 2-tier architecture. Project Assumptions: Enterprise business applications Business logic needed between user and database Data validation necessary Service-oriented (prefer RESTful services) Multi-year maintenance plan Support hundreds of users 3-tier Team Favors: Persistant layer <== Domain layer <== UI layer Service boundary between at least persistant layer and domain layer. Domain layer might have service boundary between it. Translations between each layer (clean DTO separation) Hand roll persistance unless we can find creative yet elegant automation 2-tier Team Favors: Entity Framework + WCF Data Service layer <== UI layer Business logic kept in WCF Data Service interceptors Minimal translation between layers - favor faster coding So that's the high-level argument. What considerations should we take into account? What experiences have you had with either approach?

    Read the article

  • How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

    Read the article

  • Representing xml through a single class

    - by Charles
    I am trying to abstract away the difficulties of configuring an application that we use. This application takes a xml configuration file and it can be a bit bothersome to manually edit this file, especially when we are trying to setup some automatic testing scenarios. I am finding that reading xml is nice, pretty easy, you get a network of element nodes that you can just go through and build your structures quite nicely. However I am slowly finding that the reverse is not quite so nice. I want to be able to build a xml configuration file through a single easy to use interface and because xml is composed of a system of nodes I am having a lot of struggle trying to maintain the 'easy' part. Does anyone know of any examples or samples that easily and intuitively build xml files without declaring a bunch of element type classes and expect the user to build the network themselves? For example if my desired xml output is like so <cook version="1.1"> <recipe name="chocolate chip cookie"> <ingredients> <ingredient name="flour" amount="2" units="cups"/> <ingredient name="eggs" amount="2" units="" /> <ingredient name="cooking chocolate" amount="5" units="cups" /> </ingredients> <directions> <direction name="step 1">Preheat oven</direction> <direction name="step 2">Mix flour, egg, and chocolate</direction> <direction name="step 2">bake</direction> </directions> </recipe> <recipe name="hot dog"> ... How would I go about designing a class to build that network of elements and make one easy to use interface for creating recipes? Right now I have a recipe object, an ingredient object, and a direction object. The user must make each one, set the attributes in the class and attach them to the root object which assembles the xml elements and outputs the formatted xml. Its not very pretty and I just know there has to be a better way. I am using python so bonus points for pythonic solutions

    Read the article

  • Learning Javascript in one weekend?

    - by dueyfinster
    Similiar to this question, I am wondering if experienced Javascript developers have any websites they use with examples to get the basics of Javascript down in 24/28 hours? I have looked at Douglas Crockford's Google Tech Talk and I bought the book "Javascript: the good parts" but I haven't had time to read it.

    Read the article

  • Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

    - by Caspin
    Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

    Read the article

  • How to test a site rigorously?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, I recently created a big portal site. It's time for putting it to test. How do you guys test a site rigorously? What are the ways and tools for that? Can we sort of mimic hundreds of virtual users visiting the site to see its load handling? The test should be for both security and speed Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to check for undefined or null variable in javascript

    - by Thomas Wanner
    We are frequently using the following code pattern in our javascript code if(typeof(some_variable) != 'undefined' && some_variable != null) { // do something with some_variable } and I'm wondering whether there is a less verbose way of checking that has the same effect. According to some forums and literature saying simply if(some_variable) { // do something with some_variable } should have the same effect. Unfortunately, Firebug evaluates such a statement as error on runtime when some_variable is undefined, whereas the first one is just fine for him. Is this only an (unwanted) behavior of Firebug or is there really some difference between those two ways ?

    Read the article

  • best IDE for ruby on rails

    - by Sanjay
    Having moved from java to ruby, I am struggling to find a good IDE for ruby. I used eclipse on java, so I tried Aptana Studio (previously Radrails), but its not even half as good. Currently I am trying out Netbeans for Ruby. Please suggest me the best RoR IDE out there. I believe TextMate is universally accepted as the best editor on Mac OS X. I am looking for windows. So far it seems netbeans and e-texteditor are worth a try.

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • Giving the script tag an ID

    - by The Code Pimp
    Hi guys, i came across a scenario where giving a <script> element an "ID" would solve a problem easily. However, after reading about the script tag at w3schools and quirksmode, it seems doing so could have some unforeseen consequences. Has anyone come across any of these issues with modern browsers such as Chrome, Safari, FF3 up and IE 7 up? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Simple network gaming, client-server architecture planning.

    - by michal
    Hi, I'm coding simple game which I plan to make multiplayer (over the network) as my university project. I'm considering two scenarios for client-server communication: The physics (they're trivial! I should call it "collision tests" in fact :) ) are processed on server machine only. Therefore the communication looks like Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: here you go, Client1 position is now [X,Y] Client2->Server: Pressed "fire" Server->Clients: Client1 hit Client2, make Client2 disappear! server receives the event and broadcasts it to all the other clients. Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: Client1 pressed "UP", recalculate his position!! [Client1 receives this one as well!] Which one is better? Or maybe none of them? :)

    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 | 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466  | Next Page >