Search Results

Search found 4835 results on 194 pages for 'practice'.

Page 106/194 | < Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >

  • How to achieve a loosely coupled REST API but with a defined and well understood contract?

    - by BestPractices
    I am new to REST and am struggling to understand how one would properly design a REST system to both allow for loose coupling but at the same time allow a consumer of a REST API to understand the API. If, in my client code, I issue a GET request for a resource and get back XML, how do I know what to do with that xml? e.g. if it contains <fname>John</fname><lname>Smith</lname> how do I know that these refer to the concept of "first name", "last name"? Is it up to the person writing the REST API to define in documentation some place what each of the XML fields mean? What if producer of the API wants to change the implementation to be <firstname> instead of <fname>? How do they do this and notify their consumers that this change occurred? Or do the consumers just encounter the error and then look at the payload and figure out on their own that it changed? I've read in REST in Practice that using a WADL tool to create a client implementation based on the WADL (and hide the fact that you're doing a distributed call) is an "anti-pattern". But I was planning to do this-- at least then I would have a statically typed API call that, if it changed, I would know at compile time and not at run time. Why is this a bad thing to generate client code based on a WADL? And how do I know what to do with the links that returned in the response of a POST to a REST API? What defines this contract and gives true meaning to what each link will do? Please help! I dont understand how to go from statically-typed or even SOAP/RPC to REST!

    Read the article

  • Session serialization in JavaEE environment

    - by Ionut
    Please consider the following scenario: We are working on a JavaEE project for which the scalability starts to become an issue. Up until now, we were able to scale up but this is no longer an option. Therefore we need to consider scaling out and preparing the App for a clustered environment. Our main concern right now is serializing the user sessions. Sadly, we did not consider from the beginning the issue and we are encountering the following excetion: java.io.WriteAbortedException: writing aborted; java.io.NotSerializableException: org.apache.catalina.session.StandardSessionFacade I did some research and this exception is thrown because there are objects stored on the session which does not implement the Serializable interface. Considering that all over the app there are quite a few custom objects which are stored on the session without implementing this interface, it would require a lot of tedious work and dedication to fix all these classes declaration. We will fix all this declarations but the main concern is that, in the future, there may be a developer which will add a non Serializable object on the session and break the session serialization & replication over multiple nodes. As a quick overview of the project, we are developing using a home grown framework based on Struts 1 with the Servlet 3.0 API. This means that at this point, we are using the standard session.getAttribute() and session.setAttribute() to work with the session and the session handling is scattered all over the code base. Besides updating the classes of the objects stored on session and making sure that they implement the Serializable interface, what other measures of precaution should we take in order to ensure a reliable Session replication capability on the Application layer? I know it is a little bit late to consider this but what would be the best practice in this case? Furthermore, are there any other issues we should consider regarding this transition? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • At what point would you drop some of your principles of software development for the sake of more money?

    - by MeshMan
    I'd like to throw this question out there to interestingly see where the medium is. I'm going to admit that in my last 12 months, I picked up TDD and a lot of the Agile values in software development. I was so overwhelmed with how much better my development of software became that I would never drop them out of principle. Until...I was offered a contracting role that doubled my take home pay for the year. The company I joined didn't follow any specific methodology, the team hadn't heard of anything like code smells, SOLID, etc., and I certainly wasn't going to get away with spending time doing TDD if the team had never even seen unit testing in practice. Am I a sell out? No, not completely... Code will always been written "cleanly" (as per Uncle Bob's teachings) and the principles of SOLID will always be applied to the code that I write as they are needed. Testing was dropped for me though, the company couldn't afford to have such a unknown handed to the team who quite frankly, even I did create test frameworks, they would never use/maintain the test framework correctly. Using that as an example, what point would you say a developer should never drop his craftsmanship principles for the sake of money/other benefits to them personally? I understand that this can be a very personal opinion on how concerned one is to their own needs, business needs, and the sake of craftsmanship etc. But one can consider that for example testing can be dropped if the company decided they would rather have a test team, than rather understand unit testing in programming, would that be something you could forgive yourself for like I did? So given that there is something you would drop, there usually should be an equal cost in the business that makes up for what you drop - hopefully, unless of course you are pretty much out for lining your own pockets and not community/social collaborating ;). Double your money, go back to RAD? Or walk on, and look for someone doing Agile, and never look back...

    Read the article

  • How to handle multiple effect files in XNA

    - by Adam 'Pi' Burch
    So I'm using ModelMesh and it's built in Effects parameter to draw a mesh with some shaders I'm playing with. I have a simple GUI that lets me change these parameters to my heart's desire. My question is, how do I handle shaders that have unique parameters? For example, I want a 'shiny' parameter that affects shaders with Phong-type specular components, but for an environment mapping shader such a parameter doesn't make a lot of sense. How I have it right now is that every time I call the ModelMesh's Draw() function, I set all the Effect parameters as so foreach (ModelMesh m in model.Meshes) { if (isDrawBunny == true)//Slightly change the way the world matrix is calculated if using the bunny object, since it is not quite centered in object space { world = boneTransforms[m.ParentBone.Index] * Matrix.CreateScale(scale) * rotation * Matrix.CreateTranslation(position + bunnyPositionTransform); } else //If not rendering the bunny, draw normally { world = boneTransforms[m.ParentBone.Index] * Matrix.CreateScale(scale) * rotation * Matrix.CreateTranslation(position); } foreach (Effect e in m.Effects) { Matrix ViewProjection = camera.ViewMatrix * camera.ProjectionMatrix; e.Parameters["ViewProjection"].SetValue(ViewProjection); e.Parameters["World"].SetValue(world); e.Parameters["diffuseLightPosition"].SetValue(lightPositionW); e.Parameters["CameraPosition"].SetValue(camera.Position); e.Parameters["LightColor"].SetValue(lightColor); e.Parameters["MaterialColor"].SetValue(materialColor); e.Parameters["shininess"].SetValue(shininess); //e.Parameters //e.Parameters["normal"] } m.Draw(); Note the prescience of the example! The solutions I've thought of involve preloading all the shaders, and updating the unique parameters as needed. So my question is, is there a best practice I'm missing here? Is there a way to pull the parameters a given Effect needs from that Effect? Thank you all for your time!

    Read the article

  • OOP for unit testing : The good, the bad and the ugly

    - by Jeff
    I have recently read Miško Hevery's pdf guide to writing testable code in which its stated that you should limit your classes instanciations in your constructors. I understand that its what you should do because it allow you to easily mock you objects that are send as parameters to your class. But when it comes to writing actual code, i often end up with things like that (exemple is in PHP using Zend Framework but I think it's self explanatory) : class Some_class { private $_data; private $_options; private $_locale; public function __construct($data, $options = null) { $this->_data = $data; if ($options != null) { $this->_options = $options; } $this->_init(); } private function _init() { if(isset($this->_options['locale'])) { $locale = $this->_options['locale']; if ($locale instanceof Zend_Locale) { $this->_locale = $locale; } elseif (Zend_Locale::isLocale($locale)) { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale($locale); } else { $this->_locale = new Zend_Locale(); } } } } Acording to my understanding of Miško Hevery's guide, i shouldn't instanciate the Zend_Local in my class but push it through the constructor (Which can be done through the options array in my example). I am wondering what would be the best practice to get the most flexibility for unittesing this code and aswell, if I want to move away from Zend Framework. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • What's the best structure for a repository?

    - by jpmelos
    I've looked into many open source software repositories, and I've found some common elements and somethings people do in different fashion from one another. For example, every repository has a README file, a INSTALL file, a COPYING file and stuff like that. Other things differ: Some projects, like git, have their source code in the root level, while others have the source code in a src/ folder and others, like the Linux kernel, have the source code spread in different folders in root level, that divide code by areas; Some have their tests in a t/ folder, while others in a tests/ folder, or named otherwise; Some have files about submitting patches and who the maintainers are, and those might be inside some Documentation/ or in the root level. Are there recommendations? A best practice? For example: personally, I don't like the code in the root level, git-fashion. It looks messy and confuses one trying to start as a contributor (especially because they have some code inside folders, and scripts in the root level as well, it's really messy). If I were to start a project of my own and wanted to start right from the start, are there recommendations? Best practices? How can I make a clean and clear structure? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c Anniversary at Open World General Session and Twitter Chat using #em12c on October 2nd

    - by Anand Akela
    As most of you will remember, Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c was announced last year at Open World. We are celebrating first anniversary of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c next week at Open world. During the last year, Oracle customers have seen the benefits of federated self-service access to complete application stacks, elastic scalability, automated metering, and charge-back from capabilities of Oracle Enterprise manager 12c. In this session you will learn how customers are leveraging Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c to build and operate their enterprise cloud. You will also hear about Oracle’s IT management strategy and some new capabilities inside the Oracle Enterprise Manager product family. In this anniversary general session of Oracle Enterprise Manager 12c, you will also watch an interactive role play ( similar to what some of you may have seen at "Zero to Cloud" sessions at the Oracle Cloud Builder Summit ) depicting a fictional company in the throes of deploying a private cloud. Watch as the CIO and his key cloud architects battle with misconceptions about enterprise cloud computing and watch how Oracle Enterprise Manager helps them address the key challenges of planning, deploying and managing an enterprise private cloud. The session will be led by Sushil Kumar, Vice President, Product Strategy and Business Development, Oracle Enterprise Manager. Jeff Budge, Director, Global Oracle Technology Practice, CSC Consulting, Inc. will join Sushil for the general session as well. Following the general session, Sushil Kumar ( Twitter user name @sxkumar ) will join us for a Twitter Chat on Tuesday at 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM.  Sushil will answer any follow-up questions from the general session or any question related to Oracle Enterprise Manager and Oracle Private Cloud . You can participate in the chat using hash tag #em12c on Twitter.com or by going to  tweetchat.com/room/em12c (Needs Twitter credential for participating).  You could pre-submit your questions for Sushil using any of the social media channels mentioned below. Stay Connected: Twitter |  Face book |  You Tube |  Linked in |  Newsletter

    Read the article

  • What is the precise definition of programming paradigm?

    - by Kazark
    Wikipedia defines programming paradigm thus: a fundamental style of computer programming which is echoed in the descriptive text of the paradigms tag on this site. I find this a disappointing definition. Anyone who knows the words programming and paradigm could do about that well without knowing anything else about it. There are many styles of computer programming at many level of abstraction; within any given programming paradigm, multiple styles are possible. For example, Bob Martin says in Clean Code (13), Consider this book a description of the Object Mentor School of Clean Code. The techniques and teachings within are the way that we practice our art. We are willing to claim that if you follow these teachings, you will enjoy the benefits that we have enjoyed, and you will learn to write code that is clean and professional. But don't make the mistake of thinking that we are somehow "right" in any absolute sense. Thus Bob Martin is not claiming to have the correct style of Object-Oriented programming, even though he, if anyone, might have some claim to doing so. But even within his school of programming, we might have different styles of formatting the code (K&R, etc). There are many styles of programming at many levels. So how can we define programming paradigm rigorously, to distinguish it from other categories of programming styles? Fundamental is somewhat helpful, but not specific. How can we define the phrase in a way that will communicate more than the separate meanings of each of the two words—in other words, how can we define it in a way that will provide additional meaning for someone who speaks English but isn't familiar with a variety of paradigms?

    Read the article

  • Library Organization in .NET

    - by Greg Ros
    I've written a .NET bitwise operations library as part of my projects (stuff ranging from get MSB set to some more complicated bitwise transformations) and I mean to release it as free software. I'm a bit confused about a design aspect of the library, though. Many of the methods/transformations in the library come with different endianness. A simple example is a getBitAt method that regards index 0 as the least significant bit, or the most significant bit, depending on the version used. In practice, I've found that using separate functions for different endianness results in much more comprehensible and reusable code than assuming all operations are little-endian or something. I'm really stumped regarding how best to package the library. Should I have methods that have LE and BE versions take an enum parameter in their signature, e.g. Endianness.Little, Endianness.Big? Should I have different static classes with identically named methods? such as MSB.GetBit and LSB.GetBit On a much wider note, is there a standard I could use in cases like this? Some guide? Is my design issue trivial? I have a perfectionist bent, and I sometimes get stuck on tricky design issues like this... Note: I've sort of realized I'm using endianness somewhat colloquially to refer to the order/place value of digital component parts (be they bits, bytes, or words) in a larger whole, in any setting. I'm not talking about machine-level endianness or serial transmission endianness. Just about place-value semantics in general. So there isn't a context of targeting different machines/transmission techniques or something.

    Read the article

  • Best practices for using namespaces in C++.

    - by Dima
    I have read Uncle Bob's Clean Code a few months ago, and it has had a profound impact on the way I write code. Even if it seemed like he was repeating things that every programmer should know, putting them all together and putting them into practice does result in much cleaner code. In particular, I found breaking up large functions into many tiny functions, and breaking up large classes into many tiny classes to be incredibly useful. Now for the question. The book's examples are all in Java, while I have been working in C++ for the past several years. How would the ideas in Clean Code extend to the use of namespaces, which do not exist in Java? (Yes, I know about the Java packages, but it is not really the same.) Does it make sense to apply the idea of creating many tiny entities, each with a clearly define responsibility, to namespaces? Should a small group of related classes always be wrapped in a namespace? Is this the way to manage the complexity of having lots of tiny classes, or would the cost of managing lots of namespaces be prohibitive?

    Read the article

  • Best arguments for/against introducing ORM technology into a companies dev process

    - by james
    I have started using ORM technology in the last few years. My first exposure was NHibernate. I then moved onto Linq 2 Sql, and Entity Framework. The issue I have however is, there are some organisations where I have found strong opposition to introducing ORM tools. They usually have a number of reasons: they have a lot of built up SQL skills in the team, and are worried about the underlying SQL that ORM's generate. they have DBA's who like to be able to see the SQL an app uses in order that can review it for best practice. they are worried about performance (some people have "heard" the ORM's aren't as performant but have no real proof themselves - there may well be some truth in this! :). So, I'm looking for the best or most convincing arguments that you have put forward FOR the use of ORM tools. Equally, I would be interested in the against arguments too. Note: this is NOT a discussion over which ORM I should use.

    Read the article

  • C++11 Tidbits: access control under SFINAE conditions

    - by Paolo Carlini
    Lately I have been spending quite a bit of time on the SFINAE ("Substitution failure is not an error") features of C++, fixing and tweaking various bits of the GCC implementation. An important missing piece was the implementation of the resolution of DR 1170 which, in a nutshell, mandates that access checking is done as part of the substitution process. Consider: class C { typedef int type; }; template <class T, class = typename T::type> auto f(int) - char; template <class> auto f(...) -> char (&)[2]; static_assert (sizeof(f<C>(0)) == 2, "Ouch"); According to the resolution, the static_assert should not fire, and the snippet should compile successfully. The reason being that the first f overload must be removed from the candidate set because C::type is private to C. On the other hand, before the resolution of DR 1170, the expected behavior was for the first overload to remain in the candidate set, win over the second one, to eventually lead to an access control error (*). GCC mainline (would be 4.8) finally implements the DR, thus benefiting the many modern programming techniques heavily exploiting SFINAE, among which certainly the GNU C++ runtime library itself, which relies on it for the internals of <type_traits> and in several other places. Note that the resolution of the DR is active even in C++98 mode, not just in C++11 mode, because it turned out that the traditional behavior, as implemented in GCC, wasn't fully consistent in all the possible circumstances. (*) In practice, GCC didn't really implement this, the static_assert triggered instead.

    Read the article

  • Connecting Clinical and Administrative Processes: Oracle SOA Suite for Healthcare Integration

    - by Mala Ramakrishnan
    One of the biggest IT challenges facing today’s health care industry is the difficulty finding reliable, secure, and cost-effective ways to exchange information. Payers and providers need versatile platforms for enterprise-wide information sharing. Clinicians require accurate information to provide quality care to patients while administrators need integrated information for all facets of the business operation. Both sides of the organization must be able to access information from research and development systems, practice management systems, claims systems, financial systems, and many others. Externally, these organizations must share claims data, patient records, pharmaceutical data, lab reports, and diagnostic information among third party entities—all while complying with emerging standards for formatting, processing, and storing electronic health records (EHR). Service-oriented architecture (SOA) enables developers to integrate many types of software applications, databases and computing platforms within a particular health network as well as with community, state, and national health information exchanges. The Oracle SOA Suite for healthcare integration is designed to provide healthcare organizations with comprehensive integration capabilities within a unified middleware platform, as well as with healthcare libraries and templates for streamlining healthcare IT projects. It reduces the need for specialized skills and enforces an enterprise-wide view of critical healthcare data.  Here is a new white paper that details more about this offering: Oracle SOA Suite for Healthcare Integration

    Read the article

  • Code structure for multiple applications with a common core

    - by Azrael Seraphin
    I want to create two applications that will have a lot of common functionality. Basically, one system is a more advanced version of the other system. Let's call them Simple and Advanced. The Advanced system will add to, extend, alter and sometimes replace the functionality of the Simple system. For instance, the Advanced system will add new classes, add properties and methods to existing Simple classes, change the behavior of classes, etc. Initially I was thinking that the Advanced classes simply inherited from the Simple classes but I can see the functionality diverging quite significantly as development progresses, even while maintaining a core base functionality. For instance, the Simple system might have a Project class with a Sponsor property whereas the Advanced system has a list of Project.Sponsors. It seems poor practice to inherit from a class and then hide, alter or throw away significant parts of its features. An alternative is just to run two separate code bases and copy the common code between them but that seems inefficient, archaic and fraught with peril. Surely we have moved beyond the days of "copy-and-paste inheritance". Another way to structure it would be to use partial classes and have three projects: Core which has the common functionality, Simple which extends the Core partial classes for the simple system, and Advanced which also extends the Core partial classes for the advanced system. Plus having three test projects as well for each system. This seems like a cleaner approach. What would be the best way to structure the solution/projects/code to create two versions of a similar system? Let's say I later want to create a third system called Extreme, largely based on the Advanced system. Do I then create an AdvancedCore project which both Advanced and Extreme extend using partial classes? Is there a better way to do this? If it matters, this is likely to be a C#/MVC system but I'd be happy to do this in any language/framework that is suitable.

    Read the article

  • Prevent oversteering catastrophe in racing games

    - by jdm
    When playing GTA III on Android I noticed something that has been annoying me in almost every racing game I've played (maybe except Mario Kart): Driving straight ahead is easy, but curves are really hard. When I switch lanes or pass somebody, the car starts swiveling back and forth, and any attempt to correct it makes it only worse. The only thing I can do is to hit the brakes. I think this is some kind of oversteering. What makes it so irritating is that it never happens to me in real life (thank god :-)), so 90% of the games with vehicles inside feel unreal to me (despite probably having really good physics engines). I've talked to a couple of people about this, and it seems either you 'get' racing games, or you don't. With a lot of practice, I did manage to get semi-good at some games (e.g. from the Need for Speed series), by driving very cautiously, braking a lot (and usually getting a cramp in my fingers). What can you do as a game developer to prevent the oversteering resonance catastrophe, and make driving feel right? (For a casual racing game, that doesn't strive for 100% realistic physics) I also wonder what games like Super Mario Kart exactly do differently so that they don't have so much oversteering? I guess one problem is that if you play with a keyboard or a touchscreen (but not wheels and pedals), you only have digital input: gas pressed or not, steering left/right or not, and it's much harder to steer appropriately for a given speed. The other thing is that you probably don't have a good sense of speed, and drive much faster than you would (safely) in reality. From the top of my head, one solution might be to vary the steering response with speed.

    Read the article

  • Tracking feature requests for small-scale components

    - by DXM
    I'm curious how other development teams (especially those that work in moderate to large development groups) track "future" features/wishlists for functionality for internally developed frameworks or components. I know the standard advice is that a development team should find one good tool for tracking bugs/features and use that for everything and I agree with that if the future requests are for the product itself. In my company we have an engineering department, which is broken up into multiple groups and within each there can be one to several agile teams. The bug tracking product we use has been "a leader since 1997" (their UI/usability seems to also be evaluated against that year even today) but my agile team or even group doesn't really control what is being used by the whole department. What we are looking to track is not necessarily product features but expansion/nice to have functionality for internal components that go into our product. So to name a few for example... framework/utility library on top of CppUnit which our developers share low-level IPC communications framework Common development SDK that myself and several other team leads started to help share some common code/tools at the department-wide level (this SDK is released as internal "product" to each of the groups). Is the standard practice to use the one bug tracking tool? Or would it make more sense to setup something more localized specifically for our needs and maintain it ourselves? It's also unclear how management will feel if developers start performing "IT" roles of maintaining software and servers. At the same time, right now, we use excel files, internal wiki and MS OneNote for this kind of stuff and that just doesn't feel right. (I'm afraid to ask for actual software recommendations, since that might make this question more localized or something. Also developers needs this way more than management, so it would be nice to find something either free or no more than the cost of a happy hour).

    Read the article

  • C++ Iterator lifetime and detecting invalidation

    - by DK.
    Based on what's considered idiomatic in C++11: should an iterator into a custom container survive the container itself being destroyed? should it be possible to detect when an iterator becomes invalidated? are the above conditional on "debug builds" in practice? Details: I've recently been brushing up on my C++ and learning my way around C++11. As part of that, I've been writing an idiomatic wrapper around the uriparser library. Part of this is wrapping the linked list representation of parsed path components. I'm looking for advice on what's idiomatic for containers. One thing that worries me, coming most recently from garbage-collected languages, is ensuring that random objects don't just go disappearing on users if they make a mistake regarding lifetimes. To account for this, both the PathList container and its iterators keep a shared_ptr to the actual internal state object. This ensures that as long as anything pointing into that data exists, so does the data. However, looking at the STL (and lots of searching), it doesn't look like C++ containers guarantee this. I have this horrible suspicion that the expectation is to just let containers be destroyed, invalidating any iterators along with it. std::vector certainly seems to let iterators get invalidated and still (incorrectly) function. What I want to know is: what is expected from "good"/idiomatic C++11 code? Given the shiny new smart pointers, it seems kind of strange that STL allows you to easily blow your legs off by accidentally leaking an iterator. Is using shared_ptr to the backing data an unnecessary inefficiency, a good idea for debugging or something expected that STL just doesn't do? (I'm hoping that grounding this to "idiomatic C++11" avoids charges of subjectivity...)

    Read the article

  • How to create and administer multi-architecture PPAs?

    - by maxschlepzig
    I have a program that needs to be recompiled for every ubuntu version. Currently I am packaging it using Ubuntu's PPA just for the current distribution. Eventually, I have to provide packages for the previous ubuntu version. I am not sure how to accomplish this. How does the Ubuntu PPA build server works - does it just look at the distribution field in the most current changelog entry (in the debian/changelog file) to determine for what distribution the package should be build? The debian specification allows to add multiple distributions into the distribution field. But this does not seam to help me. Some ubuntu documents talk about encoding the distribution name into the version number (in the debian changelog file). But how does this work in practice? A new version of the program is available, then what? Do I add for each distribution a new changelog entry and the PPA buildserver builds automatically for each distribution new packages after dput'ing it up? Or does the PPA buildserver just looks at the first changelog entry?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring and Open / Closed principle

    - by Giorgio
    I have recently being reading a web site about clean code development (I do not put a link here because it is not in English). One of the principles advertised by this site is the Open Closed Principle: each software component should be open for extension and closed for modification. E.g., when we have implemented and tested a class, we should only modify it to fix bugs or to add new functionality (e.g. new methods that do not influence the existing ones). The existing functionality and implementation should not be changed. I normally apply this principle by defining an interface I and a corresponding implementation class A. When class A has become stable (implemented and tested), I normally do not modify it too much (possibly, not at all), i.e. If new requirements arrive (e.g. performance, or a totally new implementation of the interface) that require big changes to the code, I write a new implementation B, and keep using A as long as B is not mature. When B is mature, all that is needed is to change how I is instantiated. If the new requirements suggest a change to the interface as well, I define a new interface I' and a new implementation A'. So I, A are frozen and remain the implementation for the production system as long as I' and A' are not stable enough to replace them. So, in view of these observation, I was a bit surprised that the web page then suggested the use of complex refactorings, "... because it is not possible to write code directly in its final form." Isn't there a contradiction / conflict between enforcing the Open / Closed Principle and suggesting the use of complex refactorings as a best practice? Or the idea here is that one can use complex refactorings during the development of a class A, but when that class has been tested successfully it should be frozen?

    Read the article

  • Rule of thumb for cost vs. savings for code re-use

    - by Styler
    Is it a good rule of thumb to always write code for the intent of re-using it somewhere down the road? Or, depending on the size of the component you are writing, is it better practice to design it for re-use when it makes sense with regards to time spent on it. What is a good rule of thumb for spending extra time on analysis and design on project components that have "some probability" of being needed later down the road for other things that may or may need this part. For example, if I have the need for project X to do things A, and B. A definitely needs to be written for re-use because it just makes sense to do so. B is very project specific at the moment, and I can hack it all together in a couple days to finish the project on time and give everyone kudos for being a great team, etc. Or if we say, lets spend a whole friggin' 2 weeks figuring out what project Y/Z might need this thing for and spend a load of extra time on on part B because someday we might need to use it on project Y/Z (where the savings will be realized). I'd imagine a perfect world situation would be a nicely crafted combination of project specific vs. re-use architected components given the project. However some code shops might feel it would be a great idea to write everything for the intention of using it at some point down the road.

    Read the article

  • Complimentary Refills

    - by onefloridacoder
    My son and I were out to dinner and right after we sat down, he combs the menu to locate the soda  selection.  Then he looks up at me and says “Looks like we get free refills here, sweet!”  While we were sitting there I was thinking where that statement came from and I remember one time where he was helping to figure out the tip and saw that were we charged for six sodas, but there were only four of us at the table.  I would say that’s when this started for eateries he’s not familiar with. I was talking a friend of mine this week and this thought came to me, why can’t we manage expectations like my son – find out before the order is placed.  Find out what’s expected first then use the other bits of guidance to move forward.  But how many times have we all paid way to much for something we thought was free on a project – me, plenty.  This quote is going up in my work space, next to one I picked up Corey Haines’ Software Craftsmanship talk at Open Agile Romania - “Work != Practice”.  So if anyone else has gotten burnt, maybe check the menu, it will be in the area where the customer will pick two from the list of “Price, Quality, or Speed”.  Refills will be listed just beneath that.

    Read the article

  • Is it correct to fix bugs without adding new features when releasing software for system testing?

    - by Pratik
    This question is to experienced testers or test leads. This is a scenario from a software project: Say the dev team have completed the first iteration of 10 features and released it to system testing. The test team has created test cases for these 10 features and estimated 5 days for testing. The dev team of course cannot sit idle for 5 days and they start creating 10 new features for next iteration. During this time the test team found defects and raised some bugs. The bugs are prioritised and some of them have to be fixed before next iteration. The catch is that they would not accept the new release with any new features or changes to existing features until all those bugs fixed. The test team says that's how can we guarantee a stable release for testing if we also introduce new features along with the bug fix. They also cannot do regression tests of all their test cases each iteration. Apparently this is proper testing process according to ISQTB. This means the dev team has to create a branch of code solely for bug fixing and another branch where they continue development. There is more merging overhead specially with refactoring and architectural changes. Can you agree if this is a common testing principle. Is the test team's concern valid. Have you encountered this in practice in your project.

    Read the article

  • Can I assume interface oriented programming as a good object oriented programming?

    - by david
    I have been programming for decades but I have not been used to object oriented programming. But for recenet years, I had a great opportunity to learn OOP, its principles, and a lot of patterns that are great. Since I've learned OOP, I tried to apply them to a couple of projects and found those projects successful. Unfortunately I didn't follow extreme programming that suggests writing test first, mainly because their time frame were tight. What I did for those projects were Identify all necessary classes and create them with proper properties and methods whenever there is dependency between classes, write interface between them see if there is any patterns for certain relationships between classes to replace By successful, I meant that it was quick development effort, the classes can be reused better, and flexible enough so that another programmer does not have to change something else to fix another part. But I wonder if this is a good practice. Of course, I know I need to put writing unit tests first in my work process. But other than that, is there any problem with this approach - creating lots of interfaces - in long term?

    Read the article

  • Which is more important in a web application code promotion hierarchy? production environment to repo equivalence or unidirectional propagation?

    - by ghbarratt
    Lets say you have a code promotion hierarchy consisting of several environments, (the polar end) two of which are development (dev) and production (prod). Lets say you also have a web application where important (but not developer controlled) files are created (and perhaps altered) in the production environment. Lets say that you (or someone above you) decided that the files which are controlled/created/altered/deleted in the production environment needed to go into the repository. Which of the following two sets of practice / approaches do you find best: Committing these non-developed file modifications made in the production environment so that the repository reflects the production environment as closely and as often as possible. Generally ignoring the non-developed production environment alterations, placing confidence in backups to restore the production environment should it be harmed, and keeping a resolution to avoid pushing developments through the promotion hierarchy in the reverse direction (avoiding pushing from prod to dev), only committing the files found in the production environment if they were absolutely necessary in other environments for development. So, 1 or 2, and why? PS - I am currently slightly biased toward maintaining production environment to repository equivalence (option 1), but I keep an open mind and would accept an answer supporting either.

    Read the article

  • How-to get the binding for a tab in the Dynamic Tab Shell Template

    - by Frank Nimphius
    The Dynamic Tab Shell template does expose a method on the Tab.java class that allows you to get access to the ADF binding container for a tab. At least in theory this works, because in practice this call always returns a null value (a bug is filed for this). To work around the problem, you can use code similar to the following to get the ADF binding for a specific tab DCBindingContainer currentBinding = (DCBindingContainer) BindingContext.getCurrent().getCurrentBindingsEntry(); DCBindingContainer templateBinding = (DCBindingContainer)currentBinding.get("ptb1"); DCBindingContainer tabBinding= (DCBindingContainer)templateBinding.get("r"+0);  In the code line above, the tabBinding variable will hold the binding reference to the first tab in the dynamic tab shell template. Note that the tab doesn't need to be visible for this (which has to do with how the template works).  "ptb1" is the template reference name in the PageDef file (Executable section) of the template consumer view. Check this string in your page before using this code. If it differs, change it also in the code above. "r0" is the binding reference of the first tab in the template. Te last tab is referenced by "r14".  

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113  | Next Page >