Search Results

Search found 240 results on 10 pages for 'coupling'.

Page 8/10 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >

• code review: Is it subjective or objective(quantifiable) ?

  - by Ram

  I am putting together some guidelines for code reviews. We do not have one formal process yet, and trying to formalize it. And our team is geographically distributed We are using TFS for source control (used it for tasks/bug tracking/project management as well, but migrated that to JIRA) with VS2008 for development. What are the things you look for when doing a code review ? These are the things I came up with Enforce FXCop rules (we are a Microsoft shop) Check for performance (any tools ?) and security (thinking about using OWASP- code crawler) and thread safety Adhere to naming conventions The code should cover edge cases and boundaries conditions Should handle exceptions correctly (do not swallow exceptions) Check if the functionality is duplicated elsewhere method body should be small(20-30 lines) , and methods should do one thing and one thing only (no side effects/ avoid temporal coupling -) Do not pass/return nulls in methods Avoid dead code Document public and protected methods/properties/variables What other things do you generally look for ? I am trying to see if we can quantify the review process (it would produce identical output when reviewed by different persons) Example: Saying "the method body should be no longer than 20-30 lines of code" as opposed to saying "the method body should be small" Or is code review very subjective ( and would differ from one reviewer to another ) ? The objective is to have a marking system (say -1 point for each FXCop rule violation,-2 points for not following naming conventions,2 point for refactoring etc) so that developers would be more careful when they check in their code.This way, we can identify developers who are consistently writing good/bad code.The goal is to have the reviewer spend about 30 minutes max, to do a review (I know this is subjective, considering the fact that the changeset/revision might include multiple files/huge changes to the existing architecture etc , but you get the general idea, the reviewer should not spend days reviewing someone's code) What other objective/quantifiable system do you follow to identify good/bad code written by developers? Book reference: Clean Code: A handbook of agile software craftmanship by Robert Martin

  Read the article

• How can I effectively test a scripting engine?

  - by ChaosPandion

  I have been working on an ECMAScript implementation and I am currently working on polishing up the project. As a part of this, I have been writing tests like the following: [TestMethod] public void ArrayReduceTest() { var engine = new Engine(); var request = new ExecScriptRequest(@" var a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; a.reduce(function(p, c, i, o) { return p + c; }); "); var response = (ExecScriptResponse)engine.PostWithReply(request); Assert.AreEqual((double)response.Data, 15D); } The problem is that there are so many points of failure in this test and similar tests that it almost doesn't seem worth it. It almost seems like my effort would be better spent reducing coupling between modules. To write a true unit test I would have to assume something like this: [TestMethod] public void CommentTest() { const string toParse = "/*First Line\r\nSecond Line*/"; var analyzer = new LexicalAnalyzer(toParse); { Assert.IsInstanceOfType(analyzer.Next(), typeof(MultiLineComment)); Assert.AreEqual(analyzer.Current.Value, "First Line\r\nSecond Line"); } } Doing this would require me to write thousands of tests which once again does not seem worth it.

  Read the article

• Consume webservice from a .NET DLL - app.config problem

  - by Asaf R

  Hi, I'm building a DLL, let's call it mydll.dll, and in it I sometimes need to call methods from webservice, myservice. mydll.dll is built using C# and .NET 3.5. To consume myservice from mydll I've Added A Service in Visual Studio 2008, which is more or less the same as using svcutil.exe. Doing so creates a class I can create, and adds endpoint and bindings configurations to mydll app.config. The problem here is that mydll app.config is never loaded. Instead, what's loaded is the app.config or web.config of the program I use mydll in. I expect mydll to evolve, which is why I've decoupled it's funcionality from the rest of my system to begin with. During that evolution it will likely add more webservice to which it'll call, ruling out manual copy-paste ways to overcome this problem. I've looked at several possible approaches to attacking this issue: Manually copy endpoints and bindings from mydell app.config to target EXE or web .config file. Couples the modules, not flexible Include endpoints and bindings from mydll app.config in target .config, using configSource (see here). Also add coupling between modules Programmatically load mydll app.config, read endpoints and bindings, and instantiate Binding and EndpointAddress. Use a different tool to create local frontend for myservice I'm not sure which way to go. Option 3 sounds promising, but as it turns out it's a lot of work and will probably introduce several bugs, so it doubtfully pays off. I'm also not familiar with any tool other than the canonical svcutil.exe. Please either give pros and cons for the above alternative, provide tips for implementing any of them, or suggest other approaches. Thanks, Asaf

  Read the article

• How to use OSGi getServiceReference() right

  - by Jens

  Hello, I am new to OSGi and came across several examples about OSGi services. For example: import org.osgi.framework.*; import org.osgi.service.log.*; public class MyActivator implements BundleActivator { public void start(BundleContext context) throws Exception { ServiceReference logRef = context.getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName()); } } My question is, why do you use getServiceReference(LogService.class.getName()) instead of getServiceReference("LogService") If you use LogService.class.getName() you have to import the Interface. This also means that you have to import the package org.osgi.services.log in your MANIFEST.MF. Isn't that completely counterproductive if you want to reduce dependencies to push loose coupling? As far as I know one advantage of services is that the service consumer doesn't have to know the service publisher. But if you have to import one specific Interface you clearly have to know who's providing it. By only using a string like "LogService" you would not have to know that the Interface is provided by org.osgi.services.log.LogService. What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Binding XML in Sliverlight without Nominal Classes

  - by AnthonyWJones

  Lets say I have a simple chunck of XML:- <root> <item forename="Fred" surname="Flintstone" /> <item forename="Barney" surname="Rubble" /> </root> Having fetched this XML in Silverlight I would like to bind it with xaml of this ilke:- <ListBox x:Name="ItemList" Style="{StaticResource Items}"> <ListBox.ItemTemplate> <DataTemplate> <StackPanel Orientation="Horizontal"> <TextBox Text="{Binding Forename}" /> <TextBox Text="{Binding Surname}" /> </StackPanel> </DataTemplate> </ListBox.ItemTemplate> </ListBox> Now I can bind simply enough with LINQ to XML and a nominal class:- public class Person { public string Forename {get; set;} public string Surname {get; set;} } So here is the question, can it be done without this class? IOW coupling between the Sliverlight code and the input XML is limited to the XAML only, other source code is agnostic to the set of attributes on the item element. Edit: The use of XSD is suggested but ultimately it amounts the same thing. XSD-Generated class. Edit: An anonymous class doesn't work, Silverlight can't bind them. Edit: This needs to be two way, the user needs to be able to edit the values and these value end up in the XML. (Changed original TextBlock to TextBox in sample above).

  Read the article

• Getter and Setter vs. Builder strategy

  - by Extrakun

  I was reading a JavaWorld's article on Getter and Setter where the basic premise is that getters expose internal content of an object, hence tightening coupling, and go on to provide examples using builder objects. I was rather leery of abolishing getter/setter but on second reading of the article, see to quite like the idea. However, sometimes I just need one cruical element of an entity class, such as the user's id and writing one whole class just to extract that cruical element seems like overkill. It also implies that for different view, a different type of importer/exporter must be implemented (or the whole data of the class to be exported out, thus resulting in waste). Usually I tend towards filtering the result of a getter - for example, if I need to output the price of a product in different currency, I would code it as: return CurrencyOutput::convertTo($product->price(), 'USD'); This is with the understanding that the raw output of a getter is not necessary the final result to be pushed onto a screen or a database. Is getter/setter really as bad as it is protrayed to be? When should one adopt a builder strategy, or a 'get the result and filter it' approach? How do you avoid having a class needing to know about every other objects if you are not using getter/setter?

  Read the article

• "Work stealing" vs. "Work shrugging"?

  - by John

  Why is it that I can find lots of information on "work stealing" and nothing on "work shrugging" as a dynamic load-balancing strategy? By "work-shrugging" I mean busy processors pushing excessive work towards less loaded neighbours rather than idle processors pulling work from busy neighbours ("work-stealing"). I think the general scalability should be the same for both strategies. However I believe that it is much more efficient for busy processors to wake idle processors if and when there is definitely work for them to do than having idle processors spinning or waking periodically to speculatively poll all neighbours for possible work. Anyway a quick google didn't show up anything under the heading of "Work Shrugging" or similar so any pointers to prior-art and the jargon for this strategy would be welcome. Clarification/Confession In more detail:- By "Work Shrugging" I actually envisage the work submitting processor (which may or may not be the target processor) being responsible for looking around the immediate locality of the preferred target processor (based on data/code locality) to decide if a near neighbour should be given the new work instead because they don't have as much work to do. I am talking about an atomic read of the immediate (typically 2 to 4) neighbours' estimated q length here. I do not think this is any more coupling than implied by the thieves polling & stealing from their neighbours - just much less often - or rather - only when it makes economic sense to do so. (I am assuming "lock-free, almost wait-free" queue structures in both strategies). Thanks.

  Read the article

• java partial classes

  - by Dewfy

  Hello colleagues, Small preamble. I was good java developer on 1.4 jdk. After it I have switched to another platforms, but here I come with problem so question is strongly about jdk 1.6 (or higher :) ). I have 3 coupled class, the nature of coupling concerned with native methods. Bellow is example of this 3 class public interface A { public void method(); } final class AOperations { static native method(. . .); } public class AImpl implements A { @Override public void method(){ AOperations.method( . . . ); } } So there is interface A, that is implemented in native way by AOperations, and AImpl just delegates method call to native methods. These relations are auto-generated. Everything ok, but I have stand before problem. Sometime interface like A need expose iterator capability. I can affect interface, but cannot change implementation (AImpl). Saying in C# I could be able resolve problem by simple partial: (C# sample) partial class AImpl{ ... //here comes auto generated code } partial class AImpl{ ... //here comes MY implementation of ... //Iterator } So, has java analogue of partial or something like.

  Read the article

• Unit testing opaque structure based C API

  - by Nicolas Goy

  I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

  Read the article

• Have I taken a wrong path in programming by being excessively worried about code elegance and style?

  - by Ygam

  I am in a major stump right now. I am a BSIT graduate, but I only started actual programming less than a year ago. I observed that I have the following attitude in programming: I tend to be more of a purist, scorning unelegant approaches to solving problems using code I tend to look at anything in a large scale, planning everything before I start coding, either in simple flowcharts or complex UML charts I have a really strong impulse on refactoring my code, even if I miss deadlines or prolong development times I am obsessed with good directory structures, file naming conventions, class, method, and variable naming conventions I tend to always want to study something new, even, as I said, at the cost of missing deadlines I tend to see software development as something to engineer, to architect; that is, seeing how things relate to each other and how blocks of code can interact (I am a huge fan of loose coupling) i.e the OOP thinking I tend to combine OOP and procedural coding whenever I see fit I want my code to execute fast (thus the elegant approaches and refactoring) This bothers me because I see my colleagues doing much better the other way around (aside from the fact that they started programming since our first year in college). By the other way around I mean, they fire up coding, gets the job done much faster because they don't have to really look at how clean their codes are or how elegant their algorithms are, they don't bother with OOP however big their projects are, they mostly use web APIs, piece them together and voila! Working code! CLients are happy, they get paid fast, at the expense of a really unmaintainable or hard-to-read code that lacks structure and conventions, or slow executions of certain actions (which the common reasoning against would be that internet connections are much faster these days, hardware is more powerful). The excuse I often receive is clients don't care about how you write the code, but they do care about how long you deliver it. If it works then all is good. Now, did my "purist" approach to programming may have been the wrong way to start programming? Should I just dump these purist concepts and just code the hell up because I have seen it: clients don't really care how beautifully coded it is?

  Read the article

• Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

  - by ph0enix

  I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

  Read the article

• Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

  - by lostiniceland

  Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

  Read the article

• Spring 3.0 vs J2EE 6.0

  - by StudiousJoseph

  Hi everybody, I'm confronted with a situation... I've been asked to give an advise regarding which approach to take, in terms of J2EE development between Spring 3.0 and J2EE 6.0. I was, and still am, a promoter of Spring 2.5 over classic J2EE 5 development, specially with JBoss, I even migrated old apps to Spring and influenced the re-definition of the development policy here to include Spring specific APIs, and helped the development of a strategic plan to foster more lightweight solutions like Spring + Tomcat, instead of the heavier ones of JBoss, right now, we're using JBoss merely as a Web container, having what i call the "container inside the container paradox", that is, having Spring apps, with most of its APIs, running inside JBoss, So we're in the process of migrating to tomcat. However, with the coming of J2EE 6.0 many features, that made Spring attractive at that time, easy deployment, less-coupling, even some sort of D.I, etc, seems to have been mimicked, in one way or the other. JSF 2.0, JPA 2.0, WebBeans, WebProfiles, etc. So, the question goes... From your point of view, how save, and logical, it is to continue to invest in a non-standard J2EE development framework like Spring given the new perspectives offered by J2EE 6.0? Can we talk about maybe 3 or 4 more years of Spring development, or do you recommend early adoption of J2EE 6.0 APIs and it's practices? I'll appreciate any insights with this...

  Read the article

• wrapping user controls in a transaction

  - by Hans Gruber

  I'm working on heavily dynamic and configurable CMS system. Therefore, many pages are composed of a dynamically loaded set of user controls. To enable loose coupling between containers (pages) and children (user controls), all user controls are responsible for their own persistence. Each User Control is wired up to its data/service layer dependencies via IoC. They also implement an IPersistable interface, which allows the container .aspx page to issue a Save command to its children without knowledge of the number or exact nature of these user controls. Note: what follows is only pseudo-code: public class MyUserControl : IPersistable, IValidatable { public void Save() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public bool IsValid() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public partial class MyPage { public void btnSave_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { foreach (IValidatable control in Controls) { if (!control.IsValid) { throw new Exception("error"); } } foreach (IPersistable control in Controls) { if (!control.Save) { throw new Exception("error"); } } } } I'm thinking of using declarative transactions from the System.EnterpriseService namespace to wrap the btnSave_Click in a transaction in case of an exception, but I'm not sure how this might be achieved or any pitfalls to such an approach.

  Read the article

• How do I design a Wizard-based system with SoC in mind?

  - by Erik Forbes

  I'm building a Windows Forms system (in C# if it matters to anyone) that provides an application automation service. As this application is targeted at users who are not computer savvy, I've decided to break up the functions of the application into various tasks, and provide these tasks via a wizard UI. I'd like to avoid coupling the views and view engine (from which the Wizard will be built) to the automation engine. The problem I'm having is that the automation engine, which runs on a separate thread while it does its thing, needs to report status information back to the user, as well as listen for cancel or pause events from the user. Since I don't want the view engine or the automation engine to rely on each other, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to provide for this information conduit. Any insights into this issue I'm having would be greatly appreciated. I've been wracking my brain for a couple weeks now on this point, and I really don't want to give up and just couple everything together. If anyone needs additional details to help come up with some sort of idea please let me know and I'll be happy to provide them.

  Read the article

• [Delphi] How would you refactor this code?

  - by Al C

  This hypothetical example illustrates several problems I can't seem to get past, even though I keep trying!! ... Suppose the original code is a long event handler, coded in the UI, triggered when a user clicks a cell in a grid. Expressed as pseudocode it's: if Condition1=true then begin //loop through every cell in row, //if aCell/headerCellValue>1 then //color aCell red end else if Condition2=true then begin //do some other calculation adding cell and headerCell values, and //if some other product>2 then //color the whole row green end else show an error message I look at this and say "Ah, refactor to the strategy pattern! The code will be easier to understand, easier to debug, and easier to later extend!" I get that. And I can easily break the code into multiple procedures. The problem is ultimately scope related. Assume the pseudocode makes extensive use of grid properties, values displayed in cells, maybe even built-in grid methods. How do you move all that to another unit, without referencing the grid component in the UI--which would break all the "rules" about loose coupling that make OOP valuable? ... I'm really looking forward to responses. Thanks, as always -- Al C.

  Read the article

• How should we setup up complex situations for tests?

  - by ShaneC

  I'm currently working on what I would call integration tests. I want to verify that if a WCF service is called it will do what I expect. Let's take a very simple scenario. Assume we have a contract object that we can put on hold or take off hold. Now writing the put on hold test is quite simple. You create a contract instance and execute the code that puts it on code. The question I have comes when we want to test the taking off hold service call. The problem is that putting a contract on hold can be actually quite complicated leading to various objects all be modified. So usually I would use the Builder pattern and do something like this.. var onHoldContract = new ContractBuilder().PutOnHold().Build(); The problem I have with this is now I have to pretty much replicate a large part of my put on hold service. Now when I change what putting something on hold means I have two places I have to modify. The other option that immediately jumps out at me is to just use the put on hold service as part of my test setup but now I'm coupling my test to the success of another piece of code which is something I don't like to do since it can lead to failures in one spot breaking unrelated tests elsewhere (if put on hold failed for example). Any other options I'm missing out here? or opinions on which method is preferable and why?

  Read the article

• how to implement enhanced session handling in PHP

  - by praksant

  Hi, i'm working with sessions in PHP, and i have different applications on single domain. Problem is, that cookies are domain specific, and so session ids are sent to any page on single domain. (i don't know if there is a way to make cookies work in different way). So Session variables are visible in every page on this domain. I'm trying to implement custom session manager to overcome this behavior, but i'm not sure if i'm thinking about it right. I want to completely avoid PHP session system, and make a global object, which would store session data and on the end of script save it to database. On first access i would generate unique session_id and create a cookie On the end of script save session data with session_id, timestamps for start of session and last access, and data from $_SERVER, such as REMOTE_ADDR, REMOTE_PORT, HTTP_USER_AGENT. On every access chceck database for session_id sent in cookie from client, check IP, Port and user agent (for security) and read data into session variable (if not expired). If session_id expired, delete from database. That session variable would be implemented as singleton (i know i would get tight coupling with this class, but i don't know about better solution). I'm trying to get following benefits: Session variables invisible in another scripts on the same server and same domain Custom management of session expiration Way to see open sessions (something like list of online users) i'm not sure if i'm overlooking any disadvantages of this solution. Is there any better way? Thank you!!

  Read the article

• Unit testing an MVC action method with a Cache dependency?

  - by Steve

  I’m relatively new to testing and MVC and came across a sticking point today. I’m attempting to test an action method that has a dependency on HttpContext.Current.Cache and wanted to know the best practice for achieving the “low coupling” to allow for easy testing. Here's what I've got so far... public class CacheHandler : ICacheHandler { public IList<Section3ListItem> StateList { get { return (List<Section3ListItem>)HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"]; } set { HttpContext.Current.Cache["StateList"] = value; } } ... I then access it like such... I'm using Castle for my IoC. public class ProfileController : ControllerBase { private readonly ISection3Repository _repository; private readonly ICacheHandler _cache; public ProfileController(ISection3Repository repository, ICacheHandler cacheHandler) { _repository = repository; _cache = cacheHandler; } [UserIdFilter] public ActionResult PersonalInfo(Guid userId) { if (_cache.StateList == null) _cache.StateList = _repository.GetLookupValues((int)ELookupKey.States).ToList(); ... Then in my unit tests I am able to mock up ICacheHandler. Would this be considered a 'best practice' and does anyone have any suggestions for other approaches? Thanks in advance. Cheers

  Read the article

• On the search for my next great .Net Read

  - by user127954

  Just got done with "The art of unit testing". It was a great read and i think everyone should go buy a copy. With that said i think the next book I'm like to read would be a architecture / Design type book that would focus heavily on building your objects / software in such a way that it would be: Low Coupling High Cohesion Easily Maintainable / Extended Easy to test Easy to Navigate / Debug The above characteristcs are the most important ones but also maybe it would also include (but not necessary) designing for: Performance - Don't want to design a system at at the end find out its dog slow :) Scalability - Again don't want to design something at the end find out it won't scale. I'd also prefer (but not necessary again): Something newer - Architectural principles seem to gradually evolve / improve over time and id like something with current thinking. .Net as illustrating language - like i said above its not mandatory but since its what i use every day id prefer it to be in .net. Doesn't really matter if its in vb.net or c# Some of the topics that would be talked about its how to minimize dependencies and using interfaces throughout your solution rather than concrete classes. Maybe it would constract /compare some of the newest design principles like DDD, Repository Pattern, Ect... I already have "Clean Code" (don't know if its this type of book or not) and "Working effectively with legacy code" on my radar but id like to read a book based upon the topic i talked about above first. Is there such a book?

  Read the article

• Breaking dependencies when you can't make changes to other files?

  - by codemuncher

  I'm doing some stealth agile development on a project. The lead programmer sees unit testing, refactoring, etc as a waste of resources and there is no way to convince him otherwise. His philosophy is "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and I understand his point of view. He's been working on the project for over a decade and knows the code inside and out. I'm not looking to debate development practices. I'm new to the project and I've been tasked with adding a new feature. I've worked on legacy projects before and used agile development practices with good result but those teams were more receptive to the idea and weren't afraid of making changes to code. I've been told I can use whatever development methodology I want but I have to limit my changes to only those necessary to add the feature. I'm using tdd for the new classes I'm writing but I keep running into road blocks caused by the liberal use of global variables and the high coupling in the classes I need to interact with. Normally I'd start extracting interfaces for these classes and make their dependence on the global variables explicit by injecting them as constructor arguments or public properties. I could argue that the changes are necessary but considering the lead never had to make them I doubt he would see it my way. What techniques can I use to break these dependencies without ruffling the lead developer's feathers? I've made some headway using: Extract Interface (for the new classes I'm creating) Extend and override the wayward classes with test stubs. (luckily most methods are public virtual) But these two can only get me so far.

  Read the article

• How I May Have Taken A Wrong Path in Programming

  - by Ygam

  I am in a major stump right now. I am a BSIT graduate, but I only started actual programming less than a year ago. I observed that I have the following attitude in programming: I tend to be more of a purist, scorning unelegant approaches to solving problems using code I tend to look at anything in a large scale, planning everything before I start coding, either in simple flowcharts or complex UML charts I have a really strong impulse on refactoring my code, even if I miss deadlines or prolong development times I am obsessed with good directory structures, file naming conventions, class, method, and variable naming conventions I tend to always want to study something new, even, as I said, at the cost of missing deadlines I tend to see software development as something to engineer, to architect; that is, seeing how things relate to each other and how blocks of code can interact (I am a huge fan of loose coupling) i.e the OOP thinking I tend to combine OOP and procedural coding whenever I see fit I want my code to execute fast (thus the elegant approaches and refactoring) This bothers me because I see my colleagues doing much better the other way around (aside from the fact that they started programming since our first year in college). By the other way around I mean, they fire up coding, gets the job done much faster because they don't have to really look at how clean their codes are or how elegant their algorithms are, they don't bother with OOP however big their projects are, they mostly use web APIs, piece them together and voila! Working code! CLients are happy, they get paid fast, at the expense of a really unmaintainable or hard-to-read code that lacks structure and conventions, or slow executions of certain actions (which the common reasoning against would be that internet connections are much faster these days, hardware is more powerful). The excuse I often receive is clients don't care about how you write the code, but they do care about how long you deliver it. If it works then all is good. Now, did my "purist" approach to programming may have been the wrong way to start programming? Should I just dump these purist concepts and just code the hell up because I have seen it: clients don't really care how beautifully coded it is?

  Read the article

• Java: refactoring static constants

  - by akf

  We are in the process of refactoring some code. There is a feature that we have developed in one project that we would like to now use in other projects. We are extracting the foundation of this feature and making it a full-fledged project which can then be imported by its current project and others. This effort has been relatively straight-forward but we have one headache. When the framework in question was originally developed, we chose to keep a variety of constant values defined as static fields in a single class. Over time this list of static members grew. The class is used in very many places in our code. In our current refactoring, we will be elevating some of the members of this class to our new framework, but leaving others in place. Our headache is in extracting the foundation members of this class to be used in our new project, and more specifically, how we should address those extracted members in our existing code. We know that we can have our existing Constants class subclass this new project's Constants class and it would inherit all of the parent's static members. This would allow us to effect the change without touching the code that uses these members to change the class name on the static reference. However, the tight coupling inherent in this choice doesn't feel right. before: public class ConstantsA { public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1"; public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2"; public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3"; } after: public class ConstantsA extends ConstantsB { public static final String CONSTANT1 = "constant.1"; } public class ConstantsB { public static final String CONSTANT2 = "constant.2"; public static final String CONSTANT3 = "constant.3"; } In our existing code branch, all of the above would be accessible in this manner: ConstantsA.CONSTANT2 I would like to solicit arguments about whether this is 'acceptable' and/or what the best practices are.

  Read the article

• Business Tier | client state in desktop application- way around Stateful Session Beans?

  - by arthur

  I read positive inputs on the following posts concerning client state management: Stateful EJBs in web application?, here, and here. I want to know how implement such client state management for desktop applications (Swing, AWT, SWT, and other). let's assume there are n desktop clients supposed to use some (remote) services provided on an Application Server. How to maintain a separate and permanent data state for each client , distinct from the other without have to use using stateful session Beans (SFSB) ? is that even possible on this application type ? With Webapp(Servlets / JsSF and JSP) some can avoid using SFSB by HttpSession object and/or coupling it with stateless session beans (SLSB). HttpSession object would keep information for each (Web)client separate and the SLSB would play the business logic music. But HttpSession objects aren't present on desktop application and I go stuck with only SFSB and SLSB. Knowing the problems(Concurrency, Error Handling, usw ) of SFSB, I would have not wanted to use it. What would be the other options? is there only SFSB available? Thanks in advances

  Read the article

• What kind of data do I pass into a Django Model.save() method?

  - by poswald

  Lets say that we are getting POSTed a form like this in Django: rate=10 items= [23,12,31,52,83,34] The items are primary keys of an Item model. I have a bunch of business logic that will run and create more items based on this data, the results of some db lookups, and some business logic. I want to put that logic into a save signal or an overridden Model.save() method of another model (let's call it Inventory). The business logic will run when I create a new Inventory object using this form data. Inventory will look like this: class Inventory(models.Model): picked_items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name="items_picked_set") calculated_items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name="items_calculated_set") rate = models.DecimalField() ... other fields here ... New calculated_items will be created based on the passed in items which will be stored as picked_items. My question is this: is it better for the save() method on this model to accept: the request object (I don't really like this coupling) the form data as arguments or kwargs (a list of primary keys and the other form fields) a list of Items (The caller form or view will lookup the list of Items and create a list as well as pass in the other form fields) some other approach? I know this is a bit subjective, but I was wondering what the general idea is. I've looked through a lot of code but I'm having a hard time finding a pattern I like.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  | Next Page >