Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst practices'.

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 88/268 | < Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >

  • SVN Best practice for a "branch" of your main product ?

    - by Steffen
    At my job we develop websites - however now we're going to make a "whitelabelled" version of a site, which basically means it's the same site, however with a different logo and hosted on a different domain. Also it'll have minor graphical differences, but overall the engine is the same. My initial thought for keeping this in SVN, was to just make a branch for it - however I'm not quite certain if this could give me trouble later on. Normally I keep my branches somewhat short lived - mainly used for developing a new feature, without disturbing trunk. We need to be able to merge trunk changes into this "whitelabel" version, which I why I thought about branching it in the first place. So what's the best way to archive this ?

    Read the article

  • Use of (non) qualified names

    - by AProgrammer
    If I want to use the name baz defined in package foo|bar|quz, I've several choices: provide fbq as a short name for foo|bar|quz and use fbq|baz use foo|bar|quz|baz import baz from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz (or an alias given in the import process) import all public symbols from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz For the languages I know, my perception is that the best practice is to use the first two ways (I'll use one or the other depending on the specific package full name and the number of symbols I need from it). I'd use the third only in a language which doesn't provide the first and hunt for supporting tools to write the import statements. And in my opinion the fourth should be reserved to package designed with than import in mind, for instance if all exported symbols start with a prefix or contains the name of the package. My questions: what is in your opinion the best practice for your favorite languages? what would you suggest in a new language? what would you suggest in an old language adding such a feature?

    Read the article

  • Repository vs Data Access

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys In the context of the n-tier application, is there a difference between what you would consider your data access classes to be and your repositories? I tend to think yes but I just wanted to see what other thought. My thinking is that the job of the repository is just to contain and execute the raw query itself, where as the data access class would create the context, execute the repository (passing in the context), handle mapping the data model to the domain model and return the result back up... What do you guys think? Also do you see any of this changing in a Linq to XML scenario (assuming that you change the context for the relevant XDocument)? Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • How to document object-oriented MATLAB code?

    - by jjkparker
    I'm writing a sizable application using object-oriented MATLAB, and this has gotten me thinking about how to document the code. If this was C, I would use Doxygen. For Java, I'd use JavaDoc. Both have mostly agreed-upon standards for how class and method documentation should look and what it should contain. But what about MATLAB code? The most I've seen in TMW's own classes is a short sentence or two at the top of the class, and I can't find any topics devoted to documenting sizable MATLAB applications. So how do you document your MATLAB classes? Any particular style issues or additional tools?

    Read the article

  • jquery - detect if selector returns null

    - by peirix
    What is the best way to detect if a jQuery-selector returns an empty object. If you do: alert($('#notAnElement')); you get [object Object], so the way I do it now is: alert($('#notAnElement').get(0)); which will write "undefined", and so you can do a check for that. But it seems very bad. What other way is there?

    Read the article

  • What's the best method in ASP.NET to obtain the current domain?

    - by Graphain
    Hi, I am wondering what the best way to obtain the current domain is in ASP.NET? For instance: http://www.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://www.domainname.com http://www.sub.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://sub.domainname.com As a guide, I should be able to add a url like "/Folder/Content/filename.html" (say as generated by Url.RouteUrl() in ASP.NET MVC) straight onto the URL and it should work.

    Read the article

  • PHP Database connection practice

    - by Phill Pafford
    I have a script that connects to multiple databases (Oracle, MySQL and MSSQL), each database connection might not be used each time the script runs but all could be used in a single script execution. My question is, "Is it better to connect to all the databases once in the beginning of the script even though all the connections might not be used. Or is it better to connect to them as needed, the only catch is that I would need to have the connection call in a loop (so the database connection would be new for X amount of times in the loop). Yeah Example Code #1: // Connections at the beginning of the script $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: might not use all the connections $rs = queryDb($query,$dbh_*); // $dbh can be any of the 3 connections } Yeah Example Code #2: // Connections in the loop for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: Would use all the connections but connecting multiple times $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); $rs_oracle = queryDb($query,$dbh_oracle); $rs_mysql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mysql); $rs_mssql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mssql); } now I know you could use a persistent connection but would that be one connection open for each database in the loop as well? Like mysql_pconnect(), mssql_pconnect() and adodb for Oracle persistent connection method. I know that persistent connection can also be resource hogs and as I'm looking for best performance/practice.

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • Using different numeric variable types

    - by DataPimp
    Im still pretty new so bear with me on this one, my question(s) are not meant to be argumentative or petty but during some reading something struck me as odd. Im under the assumption that when computers were slow and memory was expensive using the correct variable type was much more of a necessity than it is today. Now that memory is a bit easier to come by people seem to have relaxed a bit. For example, you see this sample code everywhere: for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) int? (-2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,648) for length? Isnt byte (0-255) a better choice? So Im curious of your opinion and what you believe to be best practice, I hate to think this would be used only because the acronym "int" is more intuitive for a beginner...or has memory just become so cheap that we really dont need to concern ourselves with such petty things and therefore we should just use long so we can be sure any other numbers/types(within reason) used can be cast automagically? ...or am Im just being silly by concerning myself with such things?

    Read the article

  • Avoid writing SQL queries altogether in SSIS

    - by Jonn
    Working on a Data Warehouse project, the guy that gave us the tutorial advised that we stick to using SQL queries over defining a lot of data flow transformations, citing points like it'll consume a lot of memory on the ETL box so we'd rather leave the processing to the DB box. Is this really advisable? Where's the balance between relying on GUI tools over executing a bunch of SQL scripts on your Integration package? And honestly, I'd like to avoid writing SQL queries as much as I can.

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • Password reset by email without a database table

    - by jpatokal
    The normal flow for resetting a user's password by mail is this: Generate a random string and store it in a database table Email string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated against database; if it matches, user's pw is reset However, maintaining a table and expiring old strings etc seems like a bit of an unnecessary hassle. Are there any obvious flaws in this alternative approach? Generate a MD5 hash of the user's existing password Email hash string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated by hashing existing pw again; if it matches, user's pw is reset Note that the user's password is already stored in a hashed and salted form, and I'm just hashing it once more to get a unique but repeatable string. And yes, there is one obvious "flaw": the reset link thus generated will not expire until the user changes their password (clicks the link). I don't really see why this would be a problem though -- if the mailbox is compromised, the user is screwed anyway.

    Read the article

  • Separation of interfaces and implementation

    - by bonefisher
    From assembly(or module) perspective, what do you think of separation of Interface (1.assembly) and its Implementation (2.assembly)? In this way we can use some IoC container to develop more decoupling desing.. Say we have an assembly 'A', which contains interfaces only. Then we have an assembly 'B' which references 'A' and implements those interfaces..It is dependent only on 'A'. In assembly 'C' then we can use the IoC container to create objects of 'A' using dependency injection of objects from 'B'. This way 'B' and 'C' are completely unaware (not dependent) of themselves..

    Read the article

  • Managing aesthetic code changes in git

    - by Ollie Saunders
    I find that I make a lot of small changes to my source code, often things that have almost no functional effect. For example: Refining or correcting comments. Moving function definitions within a class for a more natural reading order. Spacing and lining up some declarations for readability. Collapsing something using multiple lines on to one. Removing an old piece of commented-out code. Correcting some inconsistent whitespace. I guess I have a formidable attention to detail in my code. But the problem is I don't know what to do about these changes and they make it difficult to switch between branches etc. in git. I find myself not knowing whether to commit the minor changes, stash them, or put them in a separate branch of little tweaks and merge that in later. None those options seems ideal. The main problem is that these sort of changes are unpredictable. If I was to commit these there would be so many commits with the message "Minor code aesthetic change.", because, the second I make such a commit I notice another similar issue. What should I do when I make a minor change, a significant change, and then another minor change? I'd like to merge the three minor changes into one commit. It's also annoying seeing files as modified in git status when the change barely warrants my attention. I know about git commit --amend but I also know that's bad practice as it makes my repo inconsistent with remotes.

    Read the article

  • SOAP - Why do I need to query for the values for an update?

    - by Phill Pafford
    I'm taking over a project and wanted to understand if this is common practice using SOAP. The process that is currently in place I have to query all the values before I do an update cause I need to pass back all the values that are not being updated. Does this sound right? Example Values: fname=phill lname=pafford address=123 main phone:222-555-1212 So if I just wanted to update the phone number I need to query for the record, get all the values and submit these values for an update. Example Update Values: fname=phill lname=pafford address=123 main phone:111-555-1212 I just want to know if this is common practice or should I change the functionality of this?

    Read the article

  • Create UML diagrams after or before coding?

    - by ajsie
    I can clearly see the benefits of having UML diagrams showing your infrastructure of the application (class names, their members, how they communicate with each other etc). I'm starting a new project right now and have already structured the database (with visual paradigm). I want to use some design patterns to guide me how to code the classes. I wonder, should I code the classes first before I create UML diagram of it (maybe out of the code... seems possible) or should I first create UML diagram and then code (or generate code from the UML, seems possible that too). What are you experiences telling you is the best way?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid repetition when working with primitive types?

    - by I82Much
    I have the need to perform algorithms on various primitive types; the algorithm is essentially the same with the exception of which type the variables are. So for instance, /** * Determine if <code>value</code> is the bitwise OR of elements of <code>validValues</code> array. * For instance, our valid choices are 0001, 0010, and 1000. * We are given a value of 1001. This is valid because it can be made from * ORing together 0001 and 1000. * On the other hand, if we are given a value of 1111, this is invalid because * you cannot turn on the second bit from left by ORing together those 3 * valid values. */ public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { for (long validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { for (int validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } How can I avoid this repetition? I know there's no way to genericize primitive arrays, so my hands seem tied. I have instances of primitive arrays and not boxed arrays of say Number objects, so I do not want to go that route either. I know there are a lot of questions about primitives with respect to arrays, autoboxing, etc., but I haven't seen it formulated in quite this way, and I haven't seen a decisive answer on how to interact with these arrays. I suppose I could do something like: public static<E extends Number> boolean isValid(E value, List<E> numbers) { long theValue = value.longValue(); for (Number validOption : numbers) { theValue &= ~validOption.longValue(); } return theValue != 0; } and then public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } Is that really much better though? Any thoughts in this matter would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to properly document programming languages?

    - by roydukkey
    Where can I find information on how to properly document a programming language? What I mean is that there seems to be a standard way to document code. php.net and api.jquery.com seem to document there code the a similar way. For example, the trim() description on php.net. string trim ( string $str [, string $charlist ] ) And likewise on jquery.com .animate( properties, [ duration ], [ easing ], [ callback ] ) Does anyone even know what this syntax is called?

    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 >