Search Results

Search found 17716 results on 709 pages for 'bad pool header'.

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 88/709 | < Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >

  • PHP memcache - check if any server is available in pool?

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, I have the following code: $cluster['local'] = array('host' => '192.168.1.1', 'port' => '11211', 'weight' => 50); $cluster['local2'] = array('host' => '192.168.1.2', 'port' => '11211', 'weight' => 50); $this->memcache = new Memcache; foreach ($this->cluster() as $cluster) { $this->memcache->addServer($cluster['host'], $cluster['port'], $this->persistent, $cluster['weight'], 10, 10, TRUE , 'failure' ); } I would like to make a function that checks if any of my servers in my memcache Pool is available. How could this be done?

    Read the article

  • When using Sessions is bad thing, and whats wrong with it?

    - by Amr ElGarhy
    I know that in community server which means that you can't use Sessions, and few years ago i remember i was working on a website where we were not allowed to use sessions. In my point of view sessions are a very helpful tool if we managed how to use the right way, but is using session variable in a website is something bad, when its bad and when its not?

    Read the article

  • How can I download a script using Javascript and supply a header to the GET?

    - by Alan
    I have this method for downloading a script: var script = document.createElement('script'); script.setAttribute("src", url); document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(script); This gives me a GET like this: GET http://127.0.0.1:17315/Scripts/abc.js HTTP/1.1 However I need to add a header: Authorization: Bearer Ipnsfm9h1MWYIM0n1ng Can anyone tell me how I can add a header when I am using Javascript to perform the GET?

    Read the article

  • Server-environment and configuration: How bad is fread() etc?

    - by zero
    Hello dear commmunity, good day! I run a little site (now for several months ) that has users accessing big files, for download as well for streaming to the browser. It's fairly active, so assuming the worst, how bad is getting php to read the files that would be stored outside of the webroot and then getting it to echo it to a page dynamically for the browser to then read? My question is: how bad is fread() etc in this context!? zero

    Read the article

  • Ancillary Objects: Separate Debug ELF Files For Solaris

    - by Ali Bahrami
    We introduced a new object ELF object type in Solaris 11 Update 1 called the Ancillary Object. This posting describes them, using material originally written during their development, the PSARC arc case, and the Solaris Linker and Libraries Manual. ELF objects contain allocable sections, which are mapped into memory at runtime, and non-allocable sections, which are present in the file for use by debuggers and observability tools, but which are not mapped or used at runtime. Typically, all of these sections exist within a single object file. Ancillary objects allow them to instead go into a separate file. There are different reasons given for wanting such a feature. One can debate whether the added complexity is worth the benefit, and in most cases it is not. However, one important case stands out — customers with very large 32-bit objects who are not ready or able to make the transition to 64-bits. We have customers who build extremely large 32-bit objects. Historically, the debug sections in these objects have used the stabs format, which is limited, but relatively compact. In recent years, the industry has transitioned to the powerful but verbose DWARF standard. In some cases, the size of these debug sections is large enough to push the total object file size past the fundamental 4GB limit for 32-bit ELF object files. The best, and ultimately only, solution to overly large objects is to transition to 64-bits. However, consider environments where: Hundreds of users may be executing the code on large shared systems. (32-bits use less memory and bus bandwidth, and on sparc runs just as fast as 64-bit code otherwise). Complex finely tuned code, where the original authors may no longer be available. Critical production code, that was expensive to qualify and bring online, and which is otherwise serving its intended purpose without issue. Users in these risk adverse and/or high scale categories have good reasons to push 32-bits objects to the limit before moving on. Ancillary objects offer these users a longer runway. Design The design of ancillary objects is intended to be simple, both to help human understanding when examining elfdump output, and to lower the bar for debuggers such as dbx to support them. The primary and ancillary objects have the same set of section headers, with the same names, in the same order (i.e. each section has the same index in both files). A single added section of type SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY is added to both objects, containing information that allows a debugger to identify and validate both files relative to each other. Given one of these files, the ancillary section allows you to identify the other. Allocable sections go in the primary object, and non-allocable ones go into the ancillary object. A small set of non-allocable objects, notably the symbol table, are copied into both objects. As noted above, most sections are only written to one of the two objects, but both objects have the same section header array. The section header in the file that does not contain the section data is tagged with the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag to indicate its placeholder status. Compiler writers and others who produce objects can set the SUNW_SHF_PRIMARY section header flag to mark non-allocable sections that should go to the primary object rather than the ancillary. If you don't request an ancillary object, the Solaris ELF format is unchanged. Users who don't use ancillary objects do not pay for the feature. This is important, because they exist to serve a small subset of our users, and must not complicate the common case. If you do request an ancillary object, the runtime behavior of the primary object will be the same as that of a normal object. There is no added runtime cost. The primary and ancillary object together represent a logical single object. This is facilitated by the use of a single set of section headers. One can easily imagine a tool that can merge a primary and ancillary object into a single file, or the reverse. (Note that although this is an interesting intellectual exercise, we don't actually supply such a tool because there's little practical benefit above and beyond using ld to create the files). Among the benefits of this approach are: There is no need for per-file symbol tables to reflect the contents of each file. The same symbol table that would be produced for a standard object can be used. The section contents are identical in either case — there is no need to alter data to accommodate multiple files. It is very easy for a debugger to adapt to these new files, and the processing involved can be encapsulated in input/output routines. Most of the existing debugger implementation applies without modification. The limit of a 4GB 32-bit output object is now raised to 4GB of code, and 4GB of debug data. There is also the future possibility (not currently supported) to support multiple ancillary objects, each of which could contain up to 4GB of additional debug data. It must be noted however that the 32-bit DWARF debug format is itself inherently 32-bit limited, as it uses 32-bit offsets between debug sections, so the ability to employ multiple ancillary object files may not turn out to be useful. Using Ancillary Objects (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) By default, objects contain both allocable and non-allocable sections. Allocable sections are the sections that contain executable code and the data needed by that code at runtime. Non-allocable sections contain supplemental information that is not required to execute an object at runtime. These sections support the operation of debuggers and other observability tools. The non-allocable sections in an object are not loaded into memory at runtime by the operating system, and so, they have no impact on memory use or other aspects of runtime performance no matter their size. For convenience, both allocable and non-allocable sections are normally maintained in the same file. However, there are situations in which it can be useful to separate these sections. To reduce the size of objects in order to improve the speed at which they can be copied across wide area networks. To support fine grained debugging of highly optimized code requires considerable debug data. In modern systems, the debugging data can easily be larger than the code it describes. The size of a 32-bit object is limited to 4 Gbytes. In very large 32-bit objects, the debug data can cause this limit to be exceeded and prevent the creation of the object. To limit the exposure of internal implementation details. Traditionally, objects have been stripped of non-allocable sections in order to address these issues. Stripping is effective, but destroys data that might be needed later. The Solaris link-editor can instead write non-allocable sections to an ancillary object. This feature is enabled with the -z ancillary command line option. $ ld ... -z ancillary[=outfile] ...By default, the ancillary file is given the same name as the primary output object, with a .anc file extension. However, a different name can be provided by providing an outfile value to the -z ancillary option. When -z ancillary is specified, the link-editor performs the following actions. All allocable sections are written to the primary object. In addition, all non-allocable sections containing one or more input sections that have the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY section header flag set are written to the primary object. All remaining non-allocable sections are written to the ancillary object. The following non-allocable sections are written to both the primary object and ancillary object. .shstrtab The section name string table. .symtab The full non-dynamic symbol table. .symtab_shndx The symbol table extended index section associated with .symtab. .strtab The non-dynamic string table associated with .symtab. .SUNW_ancillary Contains the information required to identify the primary and ancillary objects, and to identify the object being examined. The primary object and all ancillary objects contain the same array of sections headers. Each section has the same section index in every file. Although the primary and ancillary objects all define the same section headers, the data for most sections will be written to a single file as described above. If the data for a section is not present in a given file, the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set, and the sh_size field is 0. This organization makes it possible to acquire a full list of section headers, a complete symbol table, and a complete list of the primary and ancillary objects from either of the primary or ancillary objects. The following example illustrates the underlying implementation of ancillary objects. An ancillary object is created by adding the -z ancillary command line option to an otherwise normal compilation. The file utility shows that the result is an executable named a.out, and an associated ancillary object named a.out.anc. $ cat hello.c #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) printf("hello, world\n"); return (0); } $ cc -g -zancillary hello.c $ file a.out a.out.anc a.out: ELF 32-bit LSB executable 80386 Version 1 [FPU], dynamically linked, not stripped, ancillary object a.out.anc a.out.anc: ELF 32-bit LSB ancillary 80386 Version 1, primary object a.out $ ./a.out hello worldThe resulting primary object is an ordinary executable that can be executed in the usual manner. It is no different at runtime than an executable built without the use of ancillary objects, and then stripped of non-allocable content using the strip or mcs commands. As previously described, the primary object and ancillary objects contain the same section headers. To see how this works, it is helpful to use the elfdump utility to display these section headers and compare them. The following table shows the section header information for a selection of headers from the previous link-edit example. Index Section Name Type Primary Flags Ancillary Flags Primary Size Ancillary Size 13 .text PROGBITS ALLOC EXECINSTR ALLOC EXECINSTR SUNW_ABSENT 0x131 0 20 .data PROGBITS WRITE ALLOC WRITE ALLOC SUNW_ABSENT 0x4c 0 21 .symtab SYMTAB 0 0 0x450 0x450 22 .strtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x1ad 0x1ad 24 .debug_info PROGBITS SUNW_ABSENT 0 0 0x1a7 28 .shstrtab STRTAB STRINGS STRINGS 0x118 0x118 29 .SUNW_ancillary SUNW_ancillary 0 0 0x30 0x30 The data for most sections is only present in one of the two files, and absent from the other file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section header flag is set when the data is absent. The data for allocable sections needed at runtime are found in the primary object. The data for non-allocable sections used for debugging but not needed at runtime are placed in the ancillary file. A small set of non-allocable sections are fully present in both files. These are the .SUNW_ancillary section used to relate the primary and ancillary objects together, the section name string table .shstrtab, as well as the symbol table.symtab, and its associated string table .strtab. It is possible to strip the symbol table from the primary object. A debugger that encounters an object without a symbol table can use the .SUNW_ancillary section to locate the ancillary object, and access the symbol contained within. The primary object, and all associated ancillary objects, contain a .SUNW_ancillary section that allows all the objects to be identified and related together. $ elfdump -T SUNW_ancillary a.out a.out.anc a.out: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 a.out.anc: Ancillary Section: .SUNW_ancillary index tag value [0] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [1] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1 a.out [2] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0x8724 [3] ANC_SUNW_MEMBER 0x1a3 a.out.anc [4] ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM 0xfbe2 [5] ANC_SUNW_NULL 0 The ancillary sections for both objects contain the same number of elements, and are identical except for the first element. Each object, starting with the primary object, is introduced with a MEMBER element that gives the file name, followed by a CHECKSUM that identifies the object. In this example, the primary object is a.out, and has a checksum of 0x8724. The ancillary object is a.out.anc, and has a checksum of 0xfbe2. The first element in a .SUNW_ancillary section, preceding the MEMBER element for the primary object, is always a CHECKSUM element, containing the checksum for the file being examined. The presence of a .SUNW_ancillary section in an object indicates that the object has associated ancillary objects. The names of the primary and all associated ancillary objects can be obtained from the ancillary section from any one of the files. It is possible to determine which file is being examined from the larger set of files by comparing the first checksum value to the checksum of each member that follows. Debugger Access and Use of Ancillary Objects Debuggers and other observability tools must merge the information found in the primary and ancillary object files in order to build a complete view of the object. This is equivalent to processing the information from a single file. This merging is simplified by the primary object and ancillary objects containing the same section headers, and a single symbol table. The following steps can be used by a debugger to assemble the information contained in these files. Starting with the primary object, or any of the ancillary objects, locate the .SUNW_ancillary section. The presence of this section identifies the object as part of an ancillary group, contains information that can be used to obtain a complete list of the files and determine which of those files is the one currently being examined. Create a section header array in memory, using the section header array from the object being examined as an initial template. Open and read each file identified by the .SUNW_ancillary section in turn. For each file, fill in the in-memory section header array with the information for each section that does not have the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag set. The result will be a complete in-memory copy of the section headers with pointers to the data for all sections. Once this information has been acquired, the debugger can proceed as it would in the single file case, to access and control the running program. Note - The ELF definition of ancillary objects provides for a single primary object, and an arbitrary number of ancillary objects. At this time, the Oracle Solaris link-editor only produces a single ancillary object containing all non-allocable sections. This may change in the future. Debuggers and other observability tools should be written to handle the general case of multiple ancillary objects. ELF Implementation Details (From the Solaris Linker and Libraries Guide) To implement ancillary objects, it was necessary to extend the ELF format to add a new object type (ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY), a new section type (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY), and 2 new section header flags (SHF_SUNW_ABSENT, SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY). In this section, I will detail these changes, in the form of diffs to the Solaris Linker and Libraries manual. Part IV ELF Application Binary Interface Chapter 13: Object File Format Object File Format Edit Note: This existing section at the beginning of the chapter describes the ELF header. There's a table of object file types, which now includes the new ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY type. e_type Identifies the object file type, as listed in the following table. NameValueMeaning ET_NONE0No file type ET_REL1Relocatable file ET_EXEC2Executable file ET_DYN3Shared object file ET_CORE4Core file ET_LOSUNW0xfefeStart operating system specific range ET_SUNW_ANCILLARY0xfefeAncillary object file ET_HISUNW0xfefdEnd operating system specific range ET_LOPROC0xff00Start processor-specific range ET_HIPROC0xffffEnd processor-specific range Sections Edit Note: This overview section defines the section header structure, and provides a high level description of known sections. It was updated to define the new SHF_SUNW_ABSENT and SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flags and the new SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY section. ... sh_type Categorizes the section's contents and semantics. Section types and their descriptions are listed in Table 13-5. sh_flags Sections support 1-bit flags that describe miscellaneous attributes. Flag definitions are listed in Table 13-8. ... Table 13-5 ELF Section Types, sh_type NameValue . . . SHT_LOSUNW0x6fffffee SHT_SUNW_ancillary0x6fffffee . . . ... SHT_LOSUNW - SHT_HISUNW Values in this inclusive range are reserved for Oracle Solaris OS semantics. SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section. ... Table 13-8 ELF Section Attribute Flags NameValue . . . SHF_MASKOS0x0ff00000 SHF_SUNW_NODISCARD0x00100000 SHF_SUNW_ABSENT0x00200000 SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY0x00400000 SHF_MASKPROC0xf0000000 . . . ... SHF_SUNW_ABSENT Indicates that the data for this section is not present in this file. When ancillary objects are created, the primary object and any ancillary objects, will all have the same section header array, to facilitate merging them to form a complete view of the object, and to allow them to use the same symbol tables. Each file contains a subset of the section data. The data for allocable sections is written to the primary object while the data for non-allocable sections is written to an ancillary file. The SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is used to indicate that the data for the section is not present in the object being examined. When the SHF_SUNW_ABSENT flag is set, the sh_size field of the section header must be 0. An application encountering an SHF_SUNW_ABSENT section can choose to ignore the section, or to search for the section data within one of the related ancillary files. SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY The default behavior when ancillary objects are created is to write all allocable sections to the primary object and all non-allocable sections to the ancillary objects. The SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag overrides this behavior. Any output section containing one more input section with the SHF_SUNW_PRIMARY flag set is written to the primary object without regard for its allocable status. ... Two members in the section header, sh_link, and sh_info, hold special information, depending on section type. Table 13-9 ELF sh_link and sh_info Interpretation sh_typesh_linksh_info . . . SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY The section header index of the associated string table. 0 . . . Special Sections Edit Note: This section describes the sections used in Solaris ELF objects, using the types defined in the previous description of section types. It was updated to define the new .SUNW_ancillary (SHT_SUNW_ANCILLARY) section. Various sections hold program and control information. Sections in the following table are used by the system and have the indicated types and attributes. Table 13-10 ELF Special Sections NameTypeAttribute . . . .SUNW_ancillarySHT_SUNW_ancillaryNone . . . ... .SUNW_ancillary Present when a given object is part of a group of ancillary objects. Contains information required to identify all the files that make up the group. See Ancillary Section for details. ... Ancillary Section Edit Note: This new section provides the format reference describing the layout of a .SUNW_ancillary section and the meaning of the various tags. Note that these sections use the same tag/value concept used for dynamic and capabilities sections, and will be familiar to anyone used to working with ELF. In addition to the primary output object, the Solaris link-editor can produce one or more ancillary objects. Ancillary objects contain non-allocable sections that would normally be written to the primary object. When ancillary objects are produced, the primary object and all of the associated ancillary objects contain a SHT_SUNW_ancillary section, containing information that identifies these related objects. Given any one object from such a group, the ancillary section provides the information needed to identify and interpret the others. This section contains an array of the following structures. See sys/elf.h. typedef struct { Elf32_Word a_tag; union { Elf32_Word a_val; Elf32_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf32_Ancillary; typedef struct { Elf64_Xword a_tag; union { Elf64_Xword a_val; Elf64_Addr a_ptr; } a_un; } Elf64_Ancillary; For each object with this type, a_tag controls the interpretation of a_un. a_val These objects represent integer values with various interpretations. a_ptr These objects represent file offsets or addresses. The following ancillary tags exist. Table 13-NEW1 ELF Ancillary Array Tags NameValuea_un ANC_SUNW_NULL0Ignored ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM1a_val ANC_SUNW_MEMBER2a_ptr ANC_SUNW_NULL Marks the end of the ancillary section. ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM Provides the checksum for a file in the c_val element. When ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM precedes the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, it provides the checksum for the object from which the ancillary section is being read. When it follows an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER tag, it provides the checksum for that member. ANC_SUNW_MEMBER Specifies an object name. The a_ptr element contains the string table offset of a null-terminated string, that provides the file name. An ancillary section must always contain an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM before the first instance of ANC_SUNW_MEMBER, identifying the current object. Following that, there should be an ANC_SUNW_MEMBER for each object that makes up the complete set of objects. Each ANC_SUNW_MEMBER should be followed by an ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM for that object. A typical ancillary section will therefore be structured as: TagMeaning ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum of this object ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object #1 ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object #1 . . . ANC_SUNW_MEMBERName of object N ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUMChecksum for object N ANC_SUNW_NULL An object can therefore identify itself by comparing the initial ANC_SUNW_CHECKSUM to each of the ones that follow, until it finds a match. Related Other Work The GNU developers have also encountered the need/desire to support separate debug information files, and use the solution detailed at http://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Separate-Debug-Files.html. At the current time, the separate debug file is constructed by building the standard object first, and then copying the debug data out of it in a separate post processing step, Hence, it is limited to a total of 4GB of code and debug data, just as a single object file would be. They are aware of this, and I have seen online comments indicating that they may add direct support for generating these separate files to their link-editor. It is worth noting that the GNU objcopy utility is available on Solaris, and that the Studio dbx debugger is able to use these GNU style separate debug files even on Solaris. Although this is interesting in terms giving Linux users a familiar environment on Solaris, the 4GB limit means it is not an answer to the problem of very large 32-bit objects. We have also encountered issues with objcopy not understanding Solaris-specific ELF sections, when using this approach. The GNU community also has a current effort to adapt their DWARF debug sections in order to move them to separate files before passing the relocatable objects to the linker. The details of Project Fission can be found at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebugFission. The goal of this project appears to be to reduce the amount of data seen by the link-editor. The primary effort revolves around moving DWARF data to separate .dwo files so that the link-editor never encounters them. The details of modifying the DWARF data to be usable in this form are involved — please see the above URL for details.

    Read the article

  • Multiple classes in a single .cs file - good or bad?

    - by Sergio
    Is it advisable to create multiple classes within a .cs file or should each .cs file have an individual class? For example: public class Items { public class Animal { } public class Person { } public class Object { } } Dodging the fact for a minute that this is a poor example of good architecture, is having more than a single class in a .cs file a code smell?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to join open-source projects as an amateur?

    - by esqew
    I've thought for about six months now that I should join an open-source iPhone or iPad project to hone my skills in Objective-C, but every time I go to do it I see thousands of lines of code on huge projects that I end up convincing myself I would never understand. I always think that my commits would just end up being a hassle for project admins and more senior contributors, so I always back out at the last second. My question essentially is, is it a hassle when an intermediately-experienced programmer joins an open-source project?

    Read the article

  • is it a bad practice to call a View from another View in MVC?

    - by marcos.borunda
    I have some plain Views, they don't have any logic behind them (there is no action or controller behind them), their only propouse is to alert the user about something like "We have sent you an email to confirm your account", "You have no access to this resource", etc... These views are really simple, and calling them through a Controller/Action seems to be too much overhead, but somehow I feel like it is not quite correct. What do you think? How do you handle this kind of situations?? I guess this question will apply to any MVC Framework, but in my case I'm using the ASP.NET MVC 3 framework.

    Read the article

  • Will Google treat this JavaScript code as a bad practice?

    - by Mathew Foscarini
    I have a website that provides a custom UX experience implemented via JavaScript. When JavaScript is disabled in the browser the website falls back to CSS for the layout. To make this possible I've added a noJS class to the <body> and quickly remove it via JavaScript. <body class="noJS layout-wide"> <script type="text/javascript">var b=document.getElementById("body");b.className=b.className.replace("noJS","");</script> This caused a problem when the page loads and JavaScript is enabled. The body immediately has it's noJS class removed, and this causes the layout to appear messed up until the JavaScript code for layout is executed (at bottom of the page). To solve this I hide each article via JavaScript by adding a CSS class fix which is display:none as each article is loaded. <article id="q-3217">....</article> <script type="text/javascript">var b=document.getElementById("q-3217");b.className=b.className+" fix";</script> After the page is ready I show all the articles in the correct layout. I've read many times in Google's documentation not to hide content. So I'm worried that the Google will penalize my website for doing this.

    Read the article

  • Is inline SQL still classed as bad practice now that we have Micro ORMs?

    - by Grofit
    This is a bit of an open ended question but I wanted some opinions, as I grew up in a world where inline SQL scripts were the norm, then we were all made very aware of SQL injection based issues, and how fragile the sql was when doing string manipulations all over the place. Then came the dawn of the ORM where you were explaining the query to the ORM and letting it generate its own SQL, which in a lot of cases was not optimal but was safe and easy. Another good thing about ORMs or database abstraction layers were that the SQL was generated with its database engine in mind, so I could use Hibernate/Nhibernate with MSSQL, MYSQL and my code never changed it was just a configuration detail. Now fast forward to current day, where Micro ORMs seem to be winning over more developers I was wondering why we have seemingly taken a U-Turn on the whole in-line sql subject. I must admit I do like the idea of no ORM config files and being able to write my query in a more optimal manner but it feels like I am opening myself back up to the old vulnerabilities such as SQL injection and I am also tying myself to one database engine so if I want my software to support multiple database engines I would need to do some more string hackery which seems to then start to make code unreadable and more fragile. (Just before someone mentions it I know you can use parameter based arguments with most micro orms which offers protection in most cases from sql injection) So what are peoples opinions on this sort of thing? I am using Dapper as my Micro ORM in this instance and NHibernate as my regular ORM in this scenario, however most in each field are quite similar. What I term as inline sql is SQL strings within source code. There used to be design debates over SQL strings in source code detracting from the fundamental intent of the logic, which is why statically typed linq style queries became so popular its still just 1 language, but with lets say C# and Sql in one page you have 2 languages intermingled in your raw source code now. Just to clarify, the SQL injection is just one of the known issues with using sql strings, I already mention you can stop this from happening with parameter based queries, however I highlight other issues with having SQL queries ingrained in your source code, such as the lack of DB Vendor abstraction as well as losing any level of compile time error capturing on string based queries, these are all issues which we managed to side step with the dawn of ORMs with their higher level querying functionality, such as HQL or LINQ etc (not all of the issues but most of them). So I am less focused on the individual highlighted issues and more the bigger picture of is it now becoming more acceptable to have SQL strings directly in your source code again, as most Micro ORMs use this mechanism. Here is a similar question which has a few different view points, although is more about the inline sql without the micro orm context: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5303746/is-inline-sql-hard-coding

    Read the article

  • Is HTML5/WebGL performance bad on low-end Android tablets and phones?

    - by Boris van Schooten
    I've developed a couple of WebGL games, and am trying them out on Android. I found that they run very slowly on my tablet, however. For example, a game with 10 sprites or so runs as 5fps. I tried Chrome and CocoonJS, but they are comparably slow. I also tried other games, and even games with only 5 or so moving sprites are this slow. This seems inconsistent with reports from others, such as this benchmark. Typically, when people talk about HTML5 game performance, they mention well-known and higher-end phones and tables. While my 7" tablet is cheap (I believe it's a relabeled Allwinner tablet, apparently with the Mali 400 GPU), I found it generally has a good gaming performance. All the games I tried run smoothly. I also developed an OpenGL ES 2 demo with 200 shaded 3D objects, and it ran at 50fps. My suspicion is that many low-end and white-label devices may have unacceptable HTML5/WebGL support, which means there may be a large section of gamers you will not reach when you choose this as your platform. I've heard rumors about inconsistent performance of HTML5 and WebGL on different devices, but no clear picture emerges. I would like to hear if any of you have had similar experiences with HTML5 or WebGL, or whether I can find information about the percentage of devices I can expect to have decent performance.

    Read the article

  • Is rotating the lead developer a good or bad idea?

    - by NickC
    I work on a team that has been flat organizationally since it's creation several months ago. My manager is non-technical and this means that our whole team is responsible for decision-making. My manager is beginning to realize that there are several benefits to having a lead developer, both for his sake (a single point of contact and single responsible party for tasks) and ours (dispute resolution, organized technical guidance, etc.). Because the team has been flat, one concern is that picking one lead developer may discourage the others. A non-developer suggested to my manager that rotating the lead developer is a possible way to avoid this issue. One developer would be lead one month, another the next, and so on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Keep in mind that this means all developers — All developers are good, but not necessarily equally suited to leadership. And if it is not, how do I recommend that we avoid this approach without seeming like it's merely for selfish reasons?

    Read the article

  • How do managers know if a person is a good or a bad programmer?

    - by Pavel Shved
    In most companies that do programming teams and divisions consist of programmers who design and write code and managers who... well, do the management stuff. Aside from just not writing code, managers usually do not even look at the code the team develops, and may even have no proper IDE installed on their work machines. Still, the managers are to judge if a person works well, if he or she should be put in charge of something, or if particular developer should be assigned to a task of the most importance and responsibility. And last, but not least: the managers usually assign the quarterly bonuses! To do the above effectively, a manager should know if a person is a good programmer—among other traits, of course. The question is, how do they do it? They don't even look at the code people write, they can't directly assess the quality of the components programmers develop... but their estimates of who is a good coder, and who is "not as good" are nevertheless correct in most cases! What is the secret?

    Read the article

  • good/bad idea to use email address in php session variable? [closed]

    - by Stephan Hovnanian
    I'm developing some additional functionality for a client's website that uses the email address as a key lookup variable between various databases (email marketing system, internal prospect database, and a third shared DB that helps bridge the gap between the two). I'm concerned that storing a visitor's email address as a $_SESSION variable could lead to security issues (not so much for our site, but for the visitor). Anybody have suggestions or experience on whether this is okay to do, or if there's another alternative out there?

    Read the article

  • Does relying on intellisense and documentation a lot while coding makes you a bad programmer? [duplicate]

    - by sharp12345
    This question already has an answer here: Forgetting basic language functions due to use of IDE, over reliance? [duplicate] 4 answers Is a programmer required to learn and memorize all syntax, or is it ok to keep handy some documentation? Would it affect the way that managers look at coders? What are the downside of depending on intellisense and auto-complete technologies and pdf documentation?

    Read the article

  • Is having several desktop environments on one account bad?

    - by Joseph_carp
    I have gnome classic, cinnamon, unity, gnome 3, and KDE installed on my only user account because I enjoy a little change from time to time (although my favorite is gnome classic) so I installed all of these desktop environments. I heard from a friend that it could potentially cause some problems. I was also told that it would be okay if I created a separate account for each environment, but I don't want to if I don't have to. Any help is much appreciated, thank you.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice for services to share a database in SOA?

    - by Paul T Davies
    I have recently been reading Hohpe and Woolf's Enterprise Integration Patterns, some of Thomas Erl's books on SOA and watching various videos and podcasts by Udi Dahan et al. on CQRS and Event Driven systems. Systems in my place of work suffer from high coupling. Although each system theoretically has its own database, there is a lot of joining between them. In practice this means there is one huge database that all systems use. For example, there is one table of customer data. Much of what I've read seems to suggest denormalising data so that each system uses only its database, and any updates to one system are propagated to all the others using messaging. I thought this was one of the ways of enforcing the boundaries in SOA - each service should have its own database, but then I read this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4019902/soa-joining-data-across-multiple-services and it suggests this is the wrong thing to do. Segregating the databases does seem like a good way of decoupling systems, but now I'm a bit confused. Is this a good route to take? Is it ever recommended that you should segregate a database on, say an SOA service, an DDD Bounded context, an application, etc?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad practice to store large files (10 MB) in a database?

    - by B Seven
    I am currently creating a web application that allows users to store and share files, 1 MB - 10 MB in size. It seems to me that storing the files in a database will significantly slow down database access. Is this a valid concern? Is it better to store the files in the file system and save the file name and path in the database? Are there any best practices related to storing files when working with a database? I am working in PHP and MySQL for this project, but is the issue the same for most environments (Ruby on Rails, PHP, .NET) and databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL).

    Read the article

  • Is rotating the lead developer a good or bad idea?

    - by Renesis
    I work on a team that has been flat organizationally since it's creation several months ago. My manager is non-technical and this means that our whole team is responsible for decision-making. My manager is beginning to realize that there are several benefits to having a lead developer, both for his sake (a single point of contact and single responsible party for tasks) and ours (dispute resolution, organized technical guidance, etc.). Because the team has been flat, one concern is that picking one lead developer may discourage the others. A non-developer suggested to my manager that rotating the lead developer is a possible way to avoid this issue. One developer would be lead one month, another the next, and so on. Is this a good idea? Why or why not? Keep in mind that this means all developers — All developers are good, but not necessarily equally suited to leadership. And if it is not, suppose I am likely the best candidate for lead developer — how do I recommend that we avoid this approach without looking like it's merely for selfish reasons? (In other words, the team is small enough that anyone recommending a single leader is likely to appear to be recommending themselves — especially those who have been part of the team longer.)

    Read the article

  • Is it bad idea to use flag variable to search MAX element in array?

    - by Boris Treukhov
    Over my programming career I formed a habit to introduce a flag variable that indicates that the first comparison has occured, just like Msft does in its linq Max() extension method implementation public static int Max(this IEnumerable<int> source) { if (source == null) { throw Error.ArgumentNull("source"); } int num = 0; bool flag = false; foreach (int num2 in source) { if (flag) { if (num2 > num) { num = num2; } } else { num = num2; flag = true; } } if (!flag) { throw Error.NoElements(); } return num; } However I have met some heretics lately, who implement this by just starting with the first element and assigning it to result, and oh no - it turned out that STL and Java authors have preferred the latter method. Java: public static <T extends Object & Comparable<? super T>> T max(Collection<? extends T> coll) { Iterator<? extends T> i = coll.iterator(); T candidate = i.next(); while (i.hasNext()) { T next = i.next(); if (next.compareTo(candidate) > 0) candidate = next; } return candidate; } STL: template<class _FwdIt> inline _FwdIt _Max_element(_FwdIt _First, _FwdIt _Last) { // find largest element, using operator< _FwdIt _Found = _First; if (_First != _Last) for (; ++_First != _Last; ) if (_DEBUG_LT(*_Found, *_First)) _Found = _First; return (_Found); } Are there any preferences between one method or another? Are there any historical reasons for this? Is one method more dangerous than another?

    Read the article

  • Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

    - by Guillaume
    I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

    Read the article

  • Getting solutions off the internet. Bad or Good? [closed]

    - by Prometheus87
    I was looking on the internet for common interview questions. I came upon one that was about finding the occurrences of certain characters in an array. The solution written right below it was in my opinion very elegant. But then another thought came to my mind that, this solution is way better than what came to my mind. So even though I know the solution (that most probably someone with a better IQ had provided) my IQ was still the same. So that means that even though i may know the answer, it still wasn't mine. hence if that question was asked and i was hired upon my answer to that question i couldn't reproduce that same elegance in my other ventures within the organization My question is what do you guys think about such "borrowed intelligence"? Is it good? Do you feel that if solutions are found off the internet, it makes you think in that same more elegant way?

    Read the article

  • How do I deal with code of bad quality contributed by a third party?

    - by lindelof
    I've recently been promoted into managing one of our most important projects. Most of the code in this project has been written by a partner of ours, not by ourselves. The code in question is of very questionable quality. Code duplication, global variables, 6-page long functions, hungarian notation, you name it. And it's in C. I want to do something about this problem, but I have very little leverage on our partner, especially since the code, for all its problems, "just works, doesn't it?". To make things worse, we're now nearing the end of this project and must ship soon. Our partner has committed a certain number of person-hours to this project and will not put in more hours. I would very much appreciate any advice or pointers you could give me on how to deal with this situation.

    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 | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >