Search Results

Search found 87926 results on 3518 pages for 'deft code'.

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 550/3518 | < Previous Page | 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557  | Next Page >

  • Download Count Problems

    Something is apparently wrong in the Android Market. We are getting multiple reports of erroneous download counts. The right people are aware of the situation and are working...

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a method which breaks "The law of Demeter" principle?

    - by dreza
    I often find myself breaking this principle (not intentially, just through bad design). However recently I've seen a bit of code that I'm not sure of the best approach. I have a number of classes. For simplicity I've taken out the bulk of the classes methods etc public class Paddock { public SoilType Soil { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around paddock information } public class SoilType { public SoilDrainageType Drainage { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around soil types } public class SoilDrainageType { // a whole bunch of public properties that expose soil drainage values public double GetProportionOfDrainage(SoilType soil, double blockRatio) { // This method does a number of calculations using public properties // exposed off SoilType as well as the blockRatio value in some conditions } } In the code I have seen in a number of places calls like so paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); or within the block object itself in places it's Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.Soil, this.GetBlockRatio()); Upon reading this seems to break "The Law of Demeter" in that I'm chaining together these properties to access the method I want. So my thought in order to adjust this was to create public methods on SoilType and Paddock that contains wrappers i.e. on paddock it would be public class Paddock { public double GetProportionOfDrainage() { return Soil.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.GetBlockRatio()); } } on the SoilType it would be public class SoilType { public double GetProportionOfDrainage(double blockRatio) { return Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this, blockRatio); } } so now calls where it used would be simply // used outside of paddock class where we can access instances of Paddock paddock.GetProportionofDrainage() or this.GetProportionOfDrainage(); // if used within Paddock class This seemed like a nice alternative. However now I have a concern over how would I enforce this usage and stop anyone else from writing code such as paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); rather than just paddock.GetProportionOfDrainage(); I need the properties to remain public at this stage as they are too ingrained in usage throughout the code block. However I don't really want a mixture of accessing the method on DrainageType directly as that seems to defeat the purpose altogether. What would be the appropiate design approach in this situation? I can provide more information as required to better help in answers. Is my thoughts on refactoring this even appropiate or should is it best to leave it as is and use the property chaining to access the method as and when required?

    Read the article

  • How do you make a bullet ricochet off a vertical wall?

    - by Bagofsheep
    First things first. I am using C# with XNA. My game is top-down and the player can shoot bullets. I've managed to get the bullets to ricochet correctly off horizontal walls. Yet, despite using similar methods (e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3203952/mirroring-an-angle) and reading other answered questions about this subject I have not been able to get the bullets to ricochet off a vertical wall correctly. Any method I've tried has failed and sometimes made ricocheting off a horizontal wall buggy. Here is the collision code that calls the ricochet method: //Loop through returned tile rectangles from quad tree to test for wall collision. If a collision occurs perform collision logic. for (int r = 0; r < returnObjects.Count; r++) if (Bullets[i].BoundingRectangle.Intersects(returnObjects[r])) Bullets[i].doCollision(returnObjects[r]); Now here is the code for the doCollision method. public void doCollision(Rectangle surface) { if (Ricochet) doRicochet(surface); else Trash = true; } Finally, here is the code for the doRicochet method. public void doRicochet(Rectangle surface) { if (Position.X > surface.Left && Position.X < surface.Right) { //Mirror the bullet's angle. Rotation = -1 * Rotation; //Moves the bullet in the direction of its rotation by given amount. moveFaceDirection(Sprite.Width * BulletScale.X); } else if (Position.Y > surface.Top && Position.Y < surface.Bottom) { } } Since I am only dealing with vertical and horizontal walls at the moment, the if statements simply determine if the object is colliding from the right or left, or from the top or bottom. If the object's X position is within the boundaries of the tile's X boundaries (left and right sides), it must be colliding from the top, and vice verse. As you can see, the else if statement is empty and is where the correct code needs to go.

    Read the article

  • June 2013 release of SSDT contains a minor bug that you should be aware of

    - by jamiet
    I have discovered what seems, to me, like a bug in the June 2013 release of SSDT and given the problems that it created yesterday on my current gig I thought it prudent to write this blog post to inform people of it. I’ve built a very simple SSDT project to reproduce the problem that has just two tables, [Table1] and [Table2], and also a procedure [Procedure1]: The two tables have exactly the same definition, both a have a single column called [Id] of type integer. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Table1] (     [Id] INT NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY ) My stored procedure simply joins the two together, orders them by the column used in the join predicate, and returns the results: CREATE PROCEDURE [dbo].[Procedure1] AS     SELECT t1.*     FROM    Table1 t1     INNER JOIN Table2 t2         ON    t1.Id = t2.Id     ORDER BY Id Now if I create those three objects manually and then execute the stored procedure, it works fine: So we know that the code works. Unfortunately, SSDT thinks that there is an error here: The text of that error is: Procedure: [dbo].[Procedure1] contains an unresolved reference to an object. Either the object does not exist or the reference is ambiguous because it could refer to any of the following objects: [dbo].[Table1].[Id] or [dbo].[Table2].[Id]. Its complaining that the [Id] field in the ORDER BY clause is ambiguous. Now you may well be thinking at this point “OK, just stick a table alias into the ORDER BY predicate and everything will be fine!” Well that’s true, but there’s a bigger problem here. One of the developers at my current client installed this drop of SSDT and all of a sudden all the builds started failing on his machine – he had errors left right and centre because, as it transpires, we have a fair bit of code that exhibits this scenario.  Worse, previous installations of SSDT do not flag this code as erroneous and therein lies the rub. We immediately had a mass panic where we had to run around the department to our developers (of which there are many) ensuring that none of them should upgrade their SSDT installation if they wanted to carry on being productive for the rest of the day. Also bear in mind that as soon as a new drop of SSDT comes out then the previous version is instantly unavailable so rolling back is going to be impossible unless you have created an administrative install of SSDT for that previous version. Just thought you should know! In the grand schema of things this isn’t a big deal as the bug can be worked around with a simple code modification but forewarned is forearmed so they say! Last thing to say, if you want to know which version of SSDT you are running check my blog post Which version of SSDT Database Projects do I have installed? @Jamiet

    Read the article

  • GDL Presents: Internet Freedom and the ITU

    GDL Presents: Internet Freedom and the ITU This week, the world's governments are gathering in Dubai to discuss the future of the Internet. Some governments want to use this meeting to increase censorship and regulate the Internet. Hear from one of the advocacy groups that's been leading efforts in opposition, and what threats may be around the corner in 2013. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 0 1 ratings Time: 01:00:00 More in Science & Technology

    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 | 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557  | Next Page >