Search Results

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

Page 90/268 | < Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >

  • Extension methods for encapsulation and reusability

    - by tzaman
    In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself?

    Read the article

  • Design advice for avoiding change in several classes

    - by Anders Svensson
    Hi, I'm trying to figure out how to design a small application more elegantly, and make it more resistant to change. Basically it is a sort of project price calculator, and the problem is that there are many parameters that can affect the pricing. I'm trying to avoid cluttering the code with a lot of if-clauses for each parameter, but still I have e.g. if-clauses in two places checking for the value of the size parameter. I have the Head First Design Patterns book, and have tried to find ideas there, but the closest I got was the decorator pattern, which has an example where starbuzz coffee sets prices depending first on condiments added, and then later in an exercise by adding a size parameter (Tall, Grande, Venti). But that didn't seem to help, because adding that parameter still seemed to add if-clause complexity in a lot of places (and this being an exercise they didn't explain that further). What I am trying to avoid is having to change several classes if a parameter were to change or a new parameter added, or at least change in as few places as possible (there's some fancy design principle word for this that I don't rememeber :-)). Here below is the code. Basically it calculates the price for a project that has the tasks "Writing" and "Analysis" with a size parameter and different pricing models. There will be other parameters coming in later too, like "How new is the product?" (New, 1-5 years old, 6-10 years old), etc. Any advice on the best design would be greatly appreciated, whether a "design pattern" or just good object oriented principles that would make it resistant to change (e.g. adding another size, or changing one of the size values, and only have to change in one place rather than in several if-clauses): public class Project { private readonly int _numberOfProducts; protected Size _size; public Task Analysis { get; set; } public Task Writing { get; set; } public Project(int numberOfProducts) { _numberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _size = GetSize(); Analysis = new AnalysisTask(numberOfProducts, _size); Writing = new WritingTask(numberOfProducts, _size); } private Size GetSize() { if (_numberOfProducts <= 2) return Size.small; if (_numberOfProducts <= 8) return Size.medium; return Size.large; } public double GetPrice() { return Analysis.GetPrice() + Writing.GetPrice(); } } public abstract class Task { protected readonly int _numberOfProducts; protected Size _size; protected double _pricePerHour; protected Dictionary<Size, int> _hours; public abstract int TotalHours { get; } public double Price { get; set; } protected Task(int numberOfProducts, Size size) { _numberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _size = size; } public double GetPrice() { return _pricePerHour * TotalHours; } } public class AnalysisTask : Task { public AnalysisTask(int numberOfProducts, Size size) : base(numberOfProducts, size) { _pricePerHour = 850; _hours = new Dictionary<Size, int>() { { Size.small, 56 }, { Size.medium, 104 }, { Size.large, 200 } }; } public override int TotalHours { get { return _hours[_size]; } } } public class WritingTask : Task { public WritingTask(int numberOfProducts, Size size) : base(numberOfProducts, size) { _pricePerHour = 650; _hours = new Dictionary<Size, int>() { { Size.small, 125 }, { Size.medium, 100 }, { Size.large, 60 } }; } public override int TotalHours { get { if (_size == Size.small) return _hours[_size] * _numberOfProducts; if (_size == Size.medium) return (_hours[Size.small] * 2) + (_hours[Size.medium] * (_numberOfProducts - 2)); return (_hours[Size.small] * 2) + (_hours[Size.medium] * (8 - 2)) + (_hours[Size.large] * (_numberOfProducts - 8)); } } } public enum Size { small, medium, large } public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); List<int> quantities = new List<int>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { quantities.Add(i); } comboBoxNumberOfProducts.DataSource = quantities; } private void comboBoxNumberOfProducts_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { Project project = new Project((int)comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); labelPrice.Text = project.GetPrice().ToString(); labelWriterHours.Text = project.Writing.TotalHours.ToString(); labelAnalysisHours.Text = project.Analysis.TotalHours.ToString(); } } At the end is a simple current calling code in the change event for a combobox that set size... (BTW, I don't like the fact that I have to use several dots to get to the TotalHours at the end here either, as far as I can recall, that violates the "principle of least knowledge" or "the law of demeter", so input on that would be appreciated too, but it's not the main point of the question) Regards, Anders

    Read the article

  • What's the smartest way to organize SVN for translated versions of the same project?

    - by brandonjp
    I apologize because I know this has been covered over and over again, but I'm trying to understand the smartest way to cleverly use subversion to our benefit. (*Note: I know our method is not the BEST way to handle localized versions, but external factors are forcing us to work this way on current projects) We have a fairly static website in English...html, css, js, etc. After the site comes back from the translator we will have 5 variations of the same code (this week...then potentially 25 more in the future!). So we'll soon have a folder for EN, FR, SP, DE, etc. Most files (css, js, img) will remain exactly the same; and html files (structure, id's, classes) will only vary based on the localized text inside the elements. Is there any way to use clever SVN folder structuring that would help us out in the event that if a small change is needed, we don't have to manually change the files in each and every translated version of the site? Thanks! --bp

    Read the article

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    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

  • Working with multiple input and output files in Python

    - by Morlock
    I need to open multiple files (2 input and 2 output files), do complex manipulations on the lines from input files and then append results at the end of 2 output files. I am currently using the following approach: in_1 = open(input_1) in_2 = open(input_2) out_1 = open(output_1, "w") out_2 = open(output_2, "w") # Read one line from each 'in_' file # Do many operations on the DNA sequences included in the input files # Append one line to each 'out_' file in_1.close() in_2.close() out_1.close() out_2.close() The files are huge (each potentially approaching 1Go, that is why I am reading through these input files one at a time. I am guessing that this is not a very Pythonic way to do things. :) Would using the following form good? with open("file1") as f1: with open("file2") as f2: # etc. If yes, could I do it while avoiding the highly indented code that would result? Thanks for the insights!

    Read the article

  • What ways are there for cleaning an R environment from objects?

    - by Tal Galili
    I know I can use ls() and rm() to see and remove objects that exist in my environment. However, when dealing with "old" .RData file, one needs to sometimes pick an environment a part to find what to keep and what to leave out. What I would like to do, is to have a GUI like interface to allow me to see the objects, sort them (for example, by there size), and remove the ones I don't need (for example, by a check-box interface). Since I imagine such a system is not currently implemented in R, what ways do exist? What do you use for cleaning old .RData files? Thanks, Tal

    Read the article

  • Using a "vo" for joined data?

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building a small financial system. Because of double-entry accounting, transactions always come in batches of two or more, so I've got a batch table and a transaction table. (The transaction table has batch_id, account_id, and amount fields, and shared data like date and description are relegated to the batch table). I've been using basic vo-type models for each table so far. Because of this table structure structure, though, transactions will almost always be selected with a join on the batch table. So should I take the selected records and splice them into two separate vo objects, or should I create a "shared" vo that contains both batch and transaction data? There are a few cases in which batch records and/or transaction records. Are there possible pitfalls down the road if I have "overlapping" vo classes?

    Read the article

  • Is there a difference here?

    - by HotHead
    Please consider following code: 1. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < 0x0002) { // do something } 2. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < uint16(0x0002)) { // do something } 3. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < static_cast<uint16>(0x0002)) { // do something } 4. uint16 a = 0x0001; uint16 b = 0x0002; if(a < b) { // do something } What compiler does in backgorund and what is the best (and correct) way to do above testing? p.s. sorry, but I couldn't find the better title :) Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Interface and base class mix, the right way to implement this

    - by Lerxst
    I have some user controls which I want to specify properties and methods for. They inherit from a base class, because they all have properties such as "Foo" and "Bar", and the reason I used a base class is so that I dont have to manually implement all of these properties in each derived class. However, I want to have a method that is only in the derived classes, not in the base class, as the base class doesn't know how to "do" the method, so I am thinking of using an interface for this. If i put it in the base class, I have to define some body to return a value (which would be invalid), and always make sure that the overriding method is not calling the base. method Is the right way to go about this to use both the base class and an interface to expose the method? It seems very round-about, but every way i think about doing it seems wrong... Let me know if the question is not clear, it's probably a dumb question but I want to do this right.

    Read the article

  • Project management: Implementing custom errors in VS compilation process

    - by David Lively
    Like many architects, I've developed coding standards through years of experience to which I expect my developers to adhere. This is especially a problem with the crowd that believes that three or four years of experience makes you a senior-level developer.Approaching this as a training and code review issue has generated limited success. So, I was thinking that it would be great to be able to add custom compile-time errors to the build process to more strictly enforce this and other guidelines. For instance, we use stored procedures for ALL database access, which provides procedure-level security, db encapsulation (table structure is hidden from the app), and other benefits. (Note: I am not interested in starting a debate about this.) Some developers prefer inline SQL or parametrized queries, and that's fine - on their own time and own projects. I'd like a way to add a compilation check that finds, say, anything that looks like string sql = "insert into some_table (col1,col2) values (@col1, @col2);" and generates an error or, in certain circumstances, a warning, with a message like Inline SQL and parametrized queries are not permitted. Or, if they use the var keyword var x = new MyClass(); Variable definitions must be explicitly typed. Do Visual Studio and MSBuild provide a way to add this functionality? I'm thinking that I could use a regular expression to find unacceptable code and generate the correct error, but I'm not sure what, from a performance standpoint, is the best way to to integrate this into the build process. We could add a pre- or post-build step to run a custom EXE, but how can I return line- and file-specifc errors? Also, I'd like this to run after compilation of each file, rather than post-link. Is a regex the best way to perform this type of pattern matching, or should I go crazy and run the code through a C# parser, which would allow node-level validation via the parse tree? I'd appreciate suggestions and tales of prior experience.

    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

  • Where do you keep your code?

    - by skiphoppy
    Your code is of course checked into a repository somewhere, but where do you keep your working copy/copies? C:\Program Files isn't right, as it's for installed packages. My Documents somehow doesn't seem right, either—a My Code folder next to My Music and My Pictures? Dumping in C:\ is messy, but seems to be "working" for other people in my office.

    Read the article

  • Building a minimal plugin architecture in Python.

    - by dF
    I have an application, written in Python, which is used by a fairly technical audience (scientists). I'm looking for a good way to make the application extensible by the users, i.e. a scripting/plugin architecture. I am looking for something extremely lightweight. Most scripts, or plugins, are not going to be developed and distributed by a third-party and installed, but are going to be something whipped up by a user in a few minutes to automate a repeating task, add support for a file format, etc. So plugins should have the absolute minimum boilerplate code, and require no 'installation' other than copying to a folder (so something like setuptools entry points, or the Zope plugin architecture seems like too much.) Are there any systems like this already out there, or any projects that implement a similar scheme that I should look at for ideas / inspiration?

    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

  • keep viewdata on RedirectToAction

    - by Thomas Stock
    [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult CreateUser([Bind(Exclude = "Id")] User user) { ... db.SubmitChanges(); ViewData["info"] = "The account has been created."; return RedirectToAction("Index", "Admin"); } This doesnt keep the "info" text in the viewdata after the redirectToAction. How would I get around this issue in the most elegant way? My current idea is to put the stuff from the Index controlleraction in a [NonAction] and call that method from both the Index action and in the CreateUser action, but I have a feeling there must be a better way. Thanks.

    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

  • help me to choose between two software architecture

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • Should a setter return immediately if assigned the same value?

    - by Andrei Rinea
    In classes that implement INotifyPropertyChanged I often see this pattern : public string FirstName { get { return _customer.FirstName; } set { if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; _customer.FirstName = value; base.OnPropertyChanged("FirstName"); } } Precisely the lines if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; are bothering me. I've often did this but I am not that sure it's needed nor good. After all if a caller assigns the very same value I don't want to reassign the field and, especially, notify my subscribers that the property has changed when, semantically it didn't. Except saving some CPU/RAM/etc by freeing the UI from updating something that will probably look the same on the screen/whatever_medium what do we obtain? Could some people force a refresh by reassigning the same value on a property (NOT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE HOWEVER)? 1. Should we do it or shouldn't we? 2. Why?

    Read the article

  • Should non-English member names be changed to English?

    - by M.A. Hanin
    Situation: Automatically generated memebers, such as MenuStrip items, have their (automatically generated) names based on the text entered when the item was created. My most common situation is creating a menu-strip and adding menu-items by entering their text (using the graphical designer). Since my GUI is in Hebrew, all these members have a name which contains a Hebrew string. Something like "(hebrew-text)ToolStripItem". When I create event handlers, the event handlers "inherit" the hebrew text: "(hebrew-text)ToolStripMenuItem_Click". This actually works well, IntelliSense has no problem with Hebrew text, and so does the compiler. The question is: should I change these names (or prevent them from being created in the first place)? What are the possible consequences of keeping those names?

    Read the article

  • linux tooling for starting as a net programmer

    - by alfredo dobrekk
    What are the linux developper tools to do the things i do with .NET in my windows environnement : I would like to port my client server application that runs under winform/nhibernate/sql server. Language c# Database SQL server ORM Nhibernate Source control SVN / Tortoise Unit testing Nunit Continuous integration Cruise Control Should i go java and eclipse ? Python and ??? Ruby and ??? Is there some IDE that allow me to manage all these processes under linux ?

    Read the article

  • How to save objects using Multi-Threading in Core Data?

    - by Konstantin
    I'm getting some data from the web service and saving it in the core data. This workflow looks like this: get xml feed go over every item in that feed, create a new ManagedObject for every feed item download some big binary data for every item and save it into ManagedObject call [managedObjectContext save:] Now, the problem is of course the performance - everything runs on the main thread. I'd like to re-factor as much as possible to another thread, but I'm not sure where I should start. Is it OK to put everything (1-4) to the separate thread?

    Read the article

  • Why is "copy and paste" of code dangerous?

    - by Yigang Wu
    Sometimes, my boss will complain us why we need so long time to implement a feature. Actually, the feature has been implemented in other AP before, you just need to copy and paste codes from there. The cost should be low. It's really a hard question, because copy and paste codes is not a easy thing from my point. Do you have any good reason to explain your boss who doesn't know technology?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  | Next Page >