Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

Page 73/348 | < Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >

• Creating a Predicate Builder extension method

  - by Rippo

  I have a Kendo UI Grid that I am currently allowing filtering on multiple columns. I am wondering if there is a an alternative approach removing the outer switch statement? Basically I want to able to create an extension method so I can filter on a IQueryable<T> and I want to drop the outer case statement so I don't have to switch column names. private static IQueryable<Contact> FilterContactList(FilterDescriptor filter, IQueryable<Contact> contactList) { switch (filter.Member) { case "Name": switch (filter.Operator) { case FilterOperator.StartsWith: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString()) || w.Lastname.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString()) || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname).StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.Contains: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname.Contains(filter.Value.ToString()) || w.Lastname.Contains(filter.Value.ToString()) || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname).Contains( filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.IsEqualTo: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname == filter.Value.ToString() || w.Lastname == filter.Value.ToString() || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname) == filter.Value.ToString()); break; } break; case "Company": switch (filter.Operator) { case FilterOperator.StartsWith: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.Contains: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company.Contains(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.IsEqualTo: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company == filter.Value.ToString()); break; } break; } return contactList; } Some additional information, I am using NHibernate Linq. Also another problem is that the "Name" column on my grid is actually "Firstname" + " " + "LastName" on my contact entity. We can also assume that all filterable columns will be strings.

  Read the article

• Two HTML elements with same id attribute: How bad is it really?

  - by danludwig

  Just browsing the google maps source code. In their header, they have 2 divs with id="search" one contains the other, and also has jstrack="1" attribute. There is a form separating them like so: <div id="search" jstrack="1"> <form action="/maps" id="...rest isn't important"> ... <div id="search">... Since this is google, I'm assuming it's not a mistake. So how bad can it really be to violate this rule? As long as you are careful in your css and dom selection, why not reuse id's like classes? Does anyone do this on purpose, and if so, why?

  Read the article

• Multiple parameters vs single parameter(object with multiple properties)

  - by Shwetanka

  I have an Entity Student with following properties - (name, joinedOn, birthday, age, batch, etc.) and a function fetchStudents(<params>). I want to fetch students based on multiple filters. In my method I have two ways to pass filters. Pass all filters as params to the method Make a class StudentCriteria with filters as fields and then pass the object of this class While working in java I always go with the second option but recently I'm working in php and I was advised to go with the first way. I am unable to figure out which way is better in maintaining the code, reusability and performance wise. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to elegantly work with a lot of print functions?

  - by user1824372

  I'm working on a Python project that is executed on a terminal (or console) for which I am planning to implement a GUI. I did not major in CS so I really have no idea how to effectively design a terminal GUI such that: the user interface looks good in GUI, it is directed to a certain widget, let's say, a text label, or a bottom bar, or a hide-able frame. Do you have any suggestions? Currently, I am using the print function to provide essential information on STDOUT during execution, so a lot of print calls are distributed here and there in the code. I'm thinking of using macro-like variables such as 'FILE_NOT_EXISTS_MESSAGE' for printing, and all of them and their values would be defined in one file. Is that a standard way to do this? Should I introduce a logging system? In summary, I'm looking for a pattern for handling console output that is effective and adaptable.

  Read the article

• What is the preferred pattern when attaching a 'runtime object'?

  - by sebf

  In my application I have the following: public class NeatObject { /* lots of static data, and configuration flags */ } public class NeatObjectConsumer { void DoCleverStuffWithObjectOnGPU(NeatObject obj); } Where NeatObject and its consumer are used to control the GPU. The idea being that, the configuration of an instance of NeatObject and its members, define how the consumer instance behaves. The object can be passed around, edited, and most importantly serialised/deserialised by the application, with and without knowledge of NeatObjectConsumer, then provided back to the consumer to do something else. The purpose of this seperation is: The consumer manages hardware resources, which change depending on the computer, and even on the execution of the application, making preserving the state of an object which does everything difficult. Avoids circular references if the assembly that contains the consumer needs to reference one that only needs to know about NeatObject. However, there is a complication in that the consumer creates hardware resources and needs to associate them with NeatObject. These don't need to be preserved, but still need to be retrieved. DoCleverStuffWithObjectOnGPU() will be called many, many times during execution and so any bottleneck is a concern, therefore I would like to avoid dictionary lookups. What is the preferred method of attaching this information to NeatObject? By preferred, I mean intuitive - other coders can see immediately what is going on - and robust - method doesn't invite playing with the resources or present them in such a way as to make them easily corruptible. Essentially, I want to add my own metadata - how should I do it? Try to use 'actual metadata' functionality like Reflection? A member of the type of an abstract class? Unmanaged pointers? If you took on a project that used this pattern, what would you have liked the previous developer to do?

  Read the article

• How can I refactor my code to use fewer singletons?

  - by fish

  I started a component based, networked game (so far only working on the server). I know why singletons can be bad, but I can't think of another way to implement the same thing. So far I have: A GameState singleton (for managing the global state of the game, i.e. pre-game, running, exiting). A World singleton, which is the root entity for my entity graph An EntityFactory A ComponentFactory I'm thinking about adding a "MessageDispatcher" so individual components can subscribe to network messages. The factories do not have state, so I suppose they aren't so bad. However, the others do have global state, which is asking for trouble. How can I refactor my code so it uses fewer singletons?

  Read the article

• Can it be a good idea to create a new table for each client of a webapp?

  - by Will

  This is semi-hypothetical, and as I've no experience in dealing with massive database tables, I have no idea if this is horrible for some reason. On to the situation: Imagine a web based application - lets say accounting software - which has 20,000 clients and each client has 1000+ entries in a table. That's 20 million rows which I know can certainly slow down complex queries. In a case like this, does it make more sense to create a new table in the database for each client? How do databases react to having 20k (or more!) tables?

  Read the article

• Which is a better design pattern for a database wrapper: Save as you go or Save when your done?

  - by izuriel

  I know this is probably a bad way to ask this question. I was unable to find another question that addressed this. The full question is this: We're producing a wrapper for a database and have two different viewpoints on managing data with the wrapper. The first is that all changes made to a data object in code must be persisted in the database by calling a "save" method to actually save the changes. The other side is that these changes should be save as they are made, so if I change a property it's saved, I change another it's save as well. What are the pros/cons of either choice and which is the "proper" way to manage the data?

  Read the article

• practical use of knowledge vs tutorials [on hold]

  - by Lauris Skraucis

  I DONT NEED FACTS,I NEED OPINIONS FROM OTHER DEVELOPERS! Which would be more useful, spend more time on tutorials than on practical use of knowledge or spend more time making real life apps? Like I do everything 50/50 or better I spend all time practicing and putting my knowledge in real life things (php, jQuery, AngularJS)? This is a big pain, I learnt jQuery, then Angular, then php, but didn't practice and forget the code, now I watched basic and intermediate tutorials to refresh knowledge, so what do you think what is the best?

  Read the article

• Hide or Show singleton?

  - by Sinker

  Singleton is a common pattern implemented in both native libraries of .NET and Java. You will see it as such: C#: MyClass.Instance Java: MyClass.getInstance() The question is: when writing APIs, is it better to expose the singleton through a property or getter, or should I hide it as much as possible? Here are the alternatives for illustrative purposes: Exposed(C#): private static MyClass instance; public static MyClass Instance { get { if (instance == null) instance = new MyClass(); return instance; } } public void PerformOperation() { ... } Hidden (C#): private static MyClass instance; public static void PerformOperation() { if (instance == null) { instance = new MyClass(); } ... } EDIT: There seems to be a number of detractors of the Singleton design. Great! Please tell me why and what is the better alternative. Here is my scenario: My whole application utilises one logger (log4net/log4j). Whenever, the program has something to log, it utilises the Logger class (e.g. Logger.Instance.Warn(...) or Logger.Instance.Error(...) etc. Should I use Logger.Warn(...) or Logger.Warn(...) instead? If you have an alternative to singletons that addresses my concern, then please write an answer for it. Thank you :)

  Read the article

• Name for this antipattern? Fields as local variables

  - by JSB????

  In some code I'm reviewing, I'm seeing stuff that's the moral equivalent of the following: public class Foo { private Bar bar; public MethodA() { bar = new Bar(); bar.A(); bar = null; } public MethodB() { bar = new Bar(); bar.B(); bar = null; } } The field bar here is logically a local variable, as its value is never intended to persist across method calls. However, since many of the methods in Foo need an object of type Bar, the original code author has just made a field of type Bar. This is obviously bad, right? Is there a name for this antipattern?

  Read the article

• Testing complex compositions

  - by phlipsy

  I have a rather large collection of classes which check and mutate a given data structure. They can be composed via the composition pattern into arbitrarily complex tree-like structures. The final product contains a lot of these composed structures. My question is now: How can I test those? Albeit it is easy to test every single unit of these compositions, it is rather expensive to test the whole compositions in the following sense: Testing the correct layout of the composition-tree results in a huge number of test cases Changes in the compositions result in a very laborious review of every single test case What is the general guideline here?

  Read the article

• Best way to load application settings

  - by enzom83

  A simple way to keep the settings of a Java application is represented by a text file with ".properties" extension containing the identifier of each setting associated with a specific value (this value may be a number, string, date, etc..). C# uses a similar approach, but the text file must be named "App.config". In both cases, in source code you must initialize a specific class for reading settings: this class has a method that returns the value (as string) associated with the specified setting identifier. // Java example Properties config = new Properties(); config.load(...); String valueStr = config.getProperty("listening-port"); // ... // C# example NameValueCollection setting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings; string valueStr = setting["listening-port"]; // ... In both cases we should parse strings loaded from the configuration file and assign the ??converted values to the related typed objects (parsing errors could occur during this phase). After the parsing step, we must check that the setting values ??belong to a specific domain of validity: for example, the maximum size of a queue should be a positive value, some values ??may be related (example: min < max), and so on. Suppose that the application should load the settings as soon as it starts: in other words, the first operation performed by the application is to load the settings. Any invalid values for the settings ??must be replaced automatically with default values??: if this happens to a group of related settings, those settings are all set with default values. The easiest way to perform these operations is to create a method that first parses all the settings, then checks the loaded values ??and finally sets any default values??. However maintenance is difficult if you use this approach: as the number of settings increases while developing the application, it becomes increasingly difficult to update the code. In order to solve this problem, I had thought of using the Template Method pattern, as follows. public abstract class Setting { protected abstract bool TryParseValues(); protected abstract bool CheckValues(); public abstract void SetDefaultValues(); /// <summary> /// Template Method /// </summary> public bool TrySetValuesOrDefault() { if (!TryParseValues() || !CheckValues()) { // parsing error or domain error SetDefaultValues(); return false; } return true; } } public class RangeSetting : Setting { private string minStr, maxStr; private byte min, max; public RangeSetting(string minStr, maxStr) { this.minStr = minStr; this.maxStr = maxStr; } protected override bool TryParseValues() { return (byte.TryParse(minStr, out min) && byte.TryParse(maxStr, out max)); } protected override bool CheckValues() { return (0 < min && min < max); } public override void SetDefaultValues() { min = 5; max = 10; } } The problem is that in this way we need to create a new class for each setting, even for a single value. Are there other solutions to this kind of problem? In summary: Easy maintenance: for example, the addition of one or more parameters. Extensibility: a first version of the application could read a single configuration file, but later versions may give the possibility of a multi-user setup (admin sets up a basic configuration, users can set only certain settings, etc..). Object oriented design.

  Read the article

• Legal Applications of Metamorphic Code

  - by V_P

  Firstly, I would like to state that I already understand the 'vx' applications for Metamorphic code. I am not here to ask a question related to any of those topics as that would be inappropriate in this context. I would like to know if anyone has ever used 'Metamorphic' code in practice, for purposes other than those previously stated, if so, what was the reasoning for using said concept. In essence I am trying to discover a purpose for this concept, if any, other than circumventing anti-virus scanners and the like.

  Read the article

• In some games, we just let the main() loop be the Player object or Table object?

  - by ????

  I was thinking that let's say if there is a game of Blackjack or MasterMind, then we should have a class called Dealer or ComputerPal, which is how the computer interact with us (as a dealer for Blackjack or as the person giving hints for MasterMind). And then there should be a Player object, and the way to play one game is aPlayer.playGame but I noticed that a book was just using the main() loop to act as the player (or as the Controller of the game), calling the Dealer methods to dealer the cards, ask for player's action, etc... 1) Is this just a lazy way to model all the proper objects? 2) If more objects are to be added, who should call the aDealer.dealCards and then ask for aPlayer.askForAction? (because it is strange to let the Player handle all the logical steps). Should there be a Table object that handle all these logic and then to play one round of game, use aTable.playGame? What is a good object design for such game?

  Read the article

• When designing an application around Model-View-Controller (MVC), what is in your toolbox?

  - by ericgorr

  There are a lot of great explanations for what the Model-View-Controller design pattern is, but I am having trouble finding good resources showing how to use it in practice. So, when you are starting a new application (doesn't matter what it is), what is in your toolbox? For example, it was suggested that using UML collaboration diagrams ( http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/umlCollaborationDiagrams.pdf ) can be useful when designing an application around MVC, although, I am not certain exactly how or why this might be the case...? So, what is in your toolbox for MVC?

  Read the article

• Is the Observer pattern adequate for this kind of scenario?

  - by Omega

  I'm creating a simple game development framework with Ruby. There is a node system. A node is a game entity, and it has position. It can have children nodes (and one parent node). Children are always drawn relatively to their parent. Nodes have a @position field. Anyone can modify it. When such position is modified, the node must update its children accordingly to properly draw them relatively to it. @position contains a Point instance (a class with x and y properties, plus some other useful methods). I need to know when a node's @position's state changes, so I can tell the node to update its children. This is easy if the programmer does something like this: @node.position = Point.new(300,300) Because it is equivalent to calling this: # Code in the Node class def position=(newValue) @position = newValue update_my_children # <--- I know that the position changed end But, I'm lost when this happens: @node.position.x = 300 The only one that knows that the position changed is the Point instance stored in the @position property of the node. But I need the node to be notified! It was at this point that I considered the Observer pattern. Basically, Point is now observable. When a node's position property is given a new Point instance (through the assignment operator), it will stop observing the previous Point it had (if any), and start observing the new one. When a Point instance gets a state change, all observers (the node owning it) will be notified, so now my node can update its children when the position changes. A problem is when this happens: @someNode.position = @anotherNode.position This means that two nodes are observing the same point. If I change one of the node's position, the other would change as well. To fix this, when a position is assigned, I plan to create a new Point instance, copy the passed argument's x and y, and store my newly created point instead of storing the passed one. Another problem I fear is this: somePoint = @node.position somePoint.x = 500 This would, technically, modify @node's position. I'm not sure if anyone would be expecting that behavior. I'm under the impression that people see Point as some kind of primitive rather than an actual object. Is this approach even reasonable? Reasons I'm feeling skeptical: I've heard that the Observer pattern should be used with, well, many observers. Technically, in this scenario there is only one observer at a time. When assigning a node's position as another's (@someNode.position = @anotherNode.position), where I create a whole new instance rather than storing the passed point, it feels hackish, or even inefficient.

  Read the article

• Recommended design pattern for object with optional and modifiable attributtes? [on hold]

  - by Ikuzen

  I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

  Read the article

• URL Encryption vs. Encoding

  - by hozza

  At the moment non/semi sensitive information is sent from one page to another via GET on our web application. Such as user ID or page number requested etc. Sometimes slightly more sensitive information is passed such as account type, user privileges etc. We currently use base64_encode() and base64_decode() just to de-humanise the information so the end user is not concerned. Is it good practice or common place for a URL GET to be encrypted rather than simply PHP base64_encoded? Perhaps using something like, this: $encrypted = base64_encode(mcrypt_encrypt(MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_256, md5($key), $string, MCRYPT_MODE_CBC, md5(md5($key)))); $decrypted = rtrim(mcrypt_decrypt(MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_256, md5($key), base64_decode($encrypted), MCRYPT_MODE_CBC, md5(md5($key))), "\0"); Is this too much or too power hungry for something as common as the URL GET.

  Read the article

• What is the correct pattern to use in this case?

  - by nulliusinverba

  I'm sure this scenario has arisen before, and I want to know what experience has taught to be the best solution. I have a number of classes that are all of a kind. Say all the objects are "Content". They may be "Article", or "Book" for example. The reason I want the "Content" abstraction is because I want to define a number of behaviours for all "Content" objects and not have to build a new DB Table and 10 classes of essentially the same code for each type of "Content". For example, to attach a "Tag" or a "Premise" to a content object would be much nicer if, say, I just had two columns one for ContentID and one for TagID. A solution I've played around with is to have a Content table with a unique ID, and then to have foreign key references on all the other tables (Book, Article, etc). This has actually proven quite solid, but I'm just not sure about it. Do you know how to call this described pattern?

  Read the article

• design for interruptable operations

  - by tpaksu

  I couldn't find a better topic but here it is; 1) When user clicks a button, code starts t work, 2) When another button is clicked, it would stop doing whatever it does and start to run the second button's code, 3) Or with not user interaction, an electrical power down detected from a connected device, so our software would cancel the current event and start doing the power down procedure. How is this design mostly applied to code? I mean "stop what you are doing" part? If you would say events, event handlers etc. how do you bind a condition to the event? and how do you tell the program without using laddered if's to end it's process? method1(); if (powerdown) return; method2(); if (powerdown) return; etc.

  Read the article

• Does C++ support subtyping?

  - by the_naive

  I know it might be a silly question to ask, but I didn't quite get an a absolute clear answer on this matter, so I thought I'd put it here. Does c++ support the subtyping in the sense that it fulfills Liskov's principle fully? I understand how parametric polymorphism, inclusion polymorphism(subclassing and overriding) work in c++ but I'm not entirely sure or understand if subtyping exists in the context of C++. Could you please explain?

  Read the article

• Good book about advanced programming techniques [closed]

  - by Luca

  I am looking to a book covering adavnced programming techniques, covering different practical scenarios and describing the different challanges with the relative solutions. As example, which are the best ways to implement a module for buying on a web application with credit card or how to manage responsivenes for the frontend of the web application itself (dealing with cache, optimeze plugins, etc). On the web there are tons of tutorials about these topics, but I am looking for a book where such cases are collected all together and treated by real professionists. If the book would provide some code samples, that would be a plus (especially if C# .NET), but I am more interested in the approach/solution rather than the code details. I could not find any of these cases in the general book about programming, therefore I hope someone might point me in the right direction. EDIT: I have 4 years experience as web developer, mainly with Microsoft (C#, ASP.NET, SQL Server) and client side technologies (jQuery, HTML/CSS).

  Read the article

• Is there such a concept as "pseudo implementation" in software development?

  - by MachuPichu

  I'm looking for a label to describe the practice of using human-based computation methods or other means of "faking" an algorithm for the sake of getting a product or demo off the ground quickly without spending the time to develop an technical/scalable/analytical solution? Eg: using Amazon Turk to count the number of empty tables in a restaurant. I'm also looking to learn more about this subject, but not sure what to search for. Human-based computation is only one method, I'm interested in the general idea of pseudo-implementation. Any ideas, recommended reading? Thanks

  Read the article

• Is this a valid implementation of the repository pattern?

  - by user1578653

  I've been reading up about the repository pattern, with a view to implementing it in my own application. Almost all examples I've found on the internet use some kind of existing framework rather than showing how to implement it 'from scratch'. Here's my first thoughts of how I might implement it - I was wondering if anyone could advise me on whether this is correct? I have two tables, named CONTAINERS and BITS. Each CONTAINER can contain any number of BITs. I represent them as two classes: class Container{ private $bits; private $id; //...and a property for each column in the table... public function __construct(){ $this->bits = array(); } public function addBit($bit){ $this->bits[] = $bit; } //...getters and setters... } class Bit{ //some properties, methods etc... } Each class will have a property for each column in its respective table. I then have a couple of 'repositories' which handle things to do with saving/retrieving these objects from the database: //repository to control saving/retrieving Containers from the database class ContainerRepository{ //inject the bit repository for use later public function __construct($bitRepo){ $this->bitRepo = $bitRepo; } public function getById($id){ //talk directly to Oracle here to all column data into the object //get all the bits in the container $bits = $this->bitRepo->getByContainerId($id); foreach($bits as $bit){ $container->addBit($bit); } //return an instance of Container } public function persist($container){ //talk directly to Oracle here to save it to the database //if its ID is NULL, create a new container in database, otherwise update the existing one //use BitRepository to save each of the Bits inside the Container $bitRepo = $this->bitRepo; foreach($container->bits as $bit){ $bitRepo->persist($bit); } } } //repository to control saving/retrieving Bits from the database class BitRepository{ public function getById($id){} public function getByContainerId($containerId){} public function persist($bit){} } Therefore, the code I would use to get an instance of Container from the database would be: $bitRepo = new BitRepository(); $containerRepo = new ContainerRepository($bitRepo); $container = $containerRepo->getById($id); Or to create a new one and save to the database: $bitRepo = new BitRepository(); $containerRepo = new ContainerRepository($bitRepo); $container = new Container(); $container->setSomeProperty(1); $bit = new Bit(); $container->addBit($bit); $containerRepo->persist($container); Can someone advise me as to whether I have implemented this pattern correctly? Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >