Search Results

Search found 28590 results on 1144 pages for 'best paractices'.

Page 107/1144 | < Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >

• Performance Related features for migration from .net 2003 Framework 1.1 to .net 2008 framework 3.5?

  - by KuldipMCA

  I am work on VB.net 2003 Framework 1.1 for last 3.5 years in windows Application. We are currently migrating to VB.net 2008 framework 3.5, but i don't know about the features which related to ADO.net and which is important to performance. I know linq to SQL but our architecture is made in .net 2003 so we should follow this. Any features which is very important to enhance the performance?

  Read the article

• Saving a reference to a int.

  - by Scott Chamberlain

  Here is a much simplified version of what I am trying to do static void Main(string[] args) { int test = 0; int test2 = 0; Test A = new Test(ref test); Test B = new Test(ref test); Test C = new Test(ref test2); A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 B.write(); //Writes 1 should write 2 C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 Console.ReadLine(); } class Test { int _a; public Test(ref int a) { _a = a; //I loose the reference here } public void write() { var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _a); Console.WriteLine(b); } } In my real code I have a int that will be incremented by many threads however where the threads a called it will not be easy to pass it the parameter that points it at the int(In the real code this is happening inside a IEnumerator). So a requirement is the reference must be made in the constructor. Also not all threads will be pointing at the same single base int so I can not use a global static int either. I know I can just box the int inside a class and pass the class around but I wanted to know if that is the correct way of doing something like this? What I think could be the correct way: static void Main(string[] args) { Holder holder = new Holder(0); Holder holder2 = new Holder(0); Test A = new Test(holder); Test B = new Test(holder); Test C = new Test(holder2); A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 B.write(); //Writes 2 should write 2 C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 Console.ReadLine(); } class Holder { public Holder(int i) { num = i; } public int num; } class Test { Holder _holder; public Test(Holder holder) { _holder = holder; } public void write() { var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _holder.num); Console.WriteLine(b); } } Is there a better way than this?

  Read the article

• How to create custom javadoc tags

  - by Carlucho

  How to create custom javadoc tags such as @pre / @post... I found some links that explain it but i haven had luck with them, i dont know if that am already tired but i can figure where to put it. these are some of the links http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/3085991/Javadoc-Programming.html http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/tooldocs/windows/javadoc.html I'm sorry to ask to be spoon fed but am at the stage where i only see black dots on the screen :\ Thanks a bunch

  Read the article

• Split html text in a SEO friendly manner

  - by al nik

  I've some html text like <h1>GreenWhiteRed</h1> Is it SEO friendly to split this text in something like <h1><span class="green">Green</span><span class="white">White</span><span class="red">Red</span></h1> Is the text still ranking well and is it interpreted as a single word 'GreenWhiteRed'?

  Read the article

• Refering to javascript instance methods with a pound/hash sign

  - by Josh

  This question is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/736120/why-are-methods-in-ruby-documentation-preceded-by-a-pound-sign I understand why in Ruby instance methods are proceeded with a pound sign, helping to differentiate talking about SomeClass#someMethod from SomeObject.someMethod and allowing rdoc to work. And I understand that the authors of PrototypeJS admire Ruby (with good reason) and so they use the hash mark convention in their documentation. My question is: is this a standard practice amongst JavaScript developers or is it just Prototype developers who do this? Asked another way, is it proepr for me to refer to instance methods in comments/documentation as SomeClass#someMethod? Or should my documentation refer to `SomeClass.someMethod?

  Read the article

• Is there a compelling reason to use quantifiers in Perl regular expressions instead of just repeatin

  - by Morinar

  I was performing a code review for a colleague and he had a regular expression that looked like this: if ($value =~ /^\d\d\d\d$/) { #do stuff } I told him he should change it to: if ($value =~ /^\d{4}$/) { #do stuff } To which he replied that he preferred the first for readability (I find the second more readable, but that's a religious debate I'll save for another day). My question: is there an actual benefit to one over the other?

  Read the article

• What is better to use for Exception output message dynamic generation String or StringBuilder or Str

  - by Artic

  What is better to use for Exception output message dynamic generation String or StringBuilder or StringBuffer?

  Read the article

• Standardizing a Release/Tools group on a specific language

  - by grahzny

  I'm part of a six-member build and release team for an embedded software company. We also support a lot of developer tools, such as Atlassian's Fisheye, Jira, etc., Perforce, Bugzilla, AnthillPro, and a couple of homebrew tools (like my Django release notes generator). Most of the time, our team just writes little plugins for larger apps (ex: customize workflows in Anthill), long-term utility scripts (package up a release for QA), or things like Perforce triggers (don't let people check into a specific branch unless their change description includes a bug number; authenticate against Active Directory instead of Perforce's internal passwords). That's about the scale of our problems, although we sometimes tackle something slightly more sizable. My boss, who is reasonably technical, has asked us to standardize on one or two languages so we can more easily substitute for each other. He's advocating bash scripts and Perl, due to their universality and simplicity. I can see his point--we mostly do "glue", so why not use "glue" languages rather than saddle ourselves with something designed for much larger projects? Since some of the tools we work with are Java-based, we do need to use something that speaks JVM sometimes. (The path of least resistance for these projects is BeanShell and Groovy.) I feel a tremendous itch toward language advocacy, but I'm trying to avoid saying "We should use Python 'cause I like it and Perl is gross." Instead, I'm trying to come up with a good approach to defining our problem set: what problems do we solve with scripts? Would we benefit from a library of common functions by our team, or are most of our projects more isolated? What is it reasonable to expect my co-workers to learn? What languages give us the most ease of development and ease of modification? Can you folks suggest some useful ways to approach this problem, both for my own thinking process and to help me facilitate some brainstorming among my coworkers?

  Read the article

• Controls added in the designer are null during Page_Load

  - by mwright

  All of the names below are generic and not the actual names used. I have a custom UserControl with a Panel that contains a a couple Labels, both .aspx controls. .aspx: <asp:Panel runat="server"> <asp:Label ID="label1" runat="server"> </asp:Label> </asp:Panel> <asp:Panel runat="server"> <asp:Label ID="label2" runat="server"> </asp:Label> </asp:Panel> Codebehind: private readonly Object object; protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { // These are the lines that are failing // label1 and label2 are null label1.Text = object.Value1; label2.Text = object.Value2; } public ObjectRow(Object objectToDisplay) { object = objectToDisplay; } On another page, in the code behind, I create a new instance of the custom user control. protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { CustomControl control = new CustomControl(object); } The user control takes the parameter and attempts to set the labels based off of the object passed in. The labels that it tries to assign the values to are however, null. Is this an ASP.net lifecycle issue that I'm not understanding? My understanding based on the Microsoft ASP.net lifecycle page was that page controls were available after the Page_Initialization. What is the proper way to do this? Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Perform Grouping of Resultsets in Code, not on Database Level

  - by NinjaBomb

  Stackoverflowers, I have a resultset from a SQL query in the form of: Category Column2 Column3 A 2 3.50 A 3 2 B 3 2 B 1 5 ... I need to group the resultset based on the Category column and sum the values for Column2 and Column3. I have to do it in code because I cannot perform the grouping in the SQL query that gets the data due to the complexity of the query (long story). This grouped data will then be displayed in a table. I have it working for specific set of values in the Category column, but I would like a solution that would handle any possible values that appear in the Category column. I know there has to be a straightforward, efficient way to do it but I cannot wrap my head around it right now. How would you accomplish it? EDIT I have attempted to group the result in SQL using the exact same grouping query suggested by Thomas Levesque and both times our entire RDBMS crashed trying to process the query. I was under the impression that Linq was not available until .NET 3.5. This is a .NET 2.0 web application so I did not think it was an option. Am I wrong in thinking that? EDIT Starting a bounty because I believe this would be a good technique to have in the toolbox to use no matter where the different resultsets are coming from. I believe knowing the most concise way to group any 2 somewhat similar sets of data in code (without .NET LINQ) would be beneficial to more people than just me.

  Read the article

• Can per-user randomized salts be replaced with iterative hashing?

  - by Chas Emerick

  In the process of building what I'd like to hope is a properly-architected authentication mechanism, I've come across a lot of materials that specify that: user passwords must be salted the salt used should be sufficiently random and generated per-user ...therefore, the salt must be stored with the user record in order to support verification of the user password I wholeheartedly agree with the first and second points, but it seems like there's an easy workaround for the latter. Instead of doing the equivalent of (pseudocode here): salt = random(); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword, salt); Why not use the hash of the username as the salt? This yields a domain of salts that is well-distributed, (roughly) random, and each individual salt is as complex as your salt function provides for. Even better, you don't have to store the salt in the database -- just regenerate it at authentication-time. More pseudocode: salt = hash(username); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword); (Of course, hash in the examples above should be something reasonable, like SHA-512, or some other strong hash.) This seems reasonable to me given what (little) I know of crypto, but the fact that it's a simplification over widely-recommended practice makes me wonder whether there's some obvious reason I've gone astray that I'm not aware of.

  Read the article

• Is jQuery always the answer?

  - by Kibbee

  I've come across a couple questions, such as this one, and I really have to wonder why "Use jQuery" seems to be the answer when somebody asks how to do something in JavaScript. I understand that jQuery can save you a lot of time, and can help you out a lot, especially when you are doing a lot of fancy JavaScript in your site. However, in instances like this, and in many other instances, it seems like it's just jumping around the problem instead of answering the question. I also feel like this builds too much dependency into libraries. I've seen way too many developers that simply rely too much on libraries, and if they encounter a situation where they didn't have the library, they would be completely unable to function. I feel like there are already enough developers who don't know JavaScript, without just telling everybody to not learn JavaScript, and use jQuery. So, just to reiterate the question. Do you think there's too much of a tendency to use jQuery, for small pieces of JavaScript, when most of the functionality of jQuery isn't being used. Should developers be fluent in the use of bare JavaScript so they don't get too dependent on using libraries? [Additional related conversation topic] Does the existence of jQuery give too much slack to web browser developers who write the JavaScript engines? If we just have workarounds to cover all the inconsistencies in JavaScript, what pressure is there on browser makers to ensure that their JavaScript library works as it should. I feel like this extrapolates the same problem discussed in SO Podcast #36 of "be conservative in what you send, liberal in what you accept". By being so liberal with bad JavaScript engines, and using a common library to work around the flaws, we are promoting their use, and extending the problem.

  Read the article

• Android implicit intents VS explicit intents

  - by Aleksander O

  Working with android I realized that implicit intents are good choice in most of cases due to their's flexibility. But what's about explicit intents? What are benefits of using them? What are common cases when it's a good practice to use them?

  Read the article

• Legacy code - when to move on

  - by Mmarquee

  My team and support a large number of legacy applications all of which are currently functional but problematic to support and maintain. They all depend on code that the compiler manufacture has officially no support for. So the question is should we leave the code as is, and risk a new compiler breaking our code, or should we bite the bullet and update all the code?

  Read the article

• Win32: HtmlHelp doesn't work from a network share. What's the alternative?

  - by Ian Boyd

  Since 2005, when Microsoft prevented HtmlHelp functioning off a network share, e.g.: \\appserver\tos\PointScanner.exe \\appserver\tos\PointScanner.chm What are we supposed to do instead? (Given that the application is not installed locally.)

  Read the article

• "Nearly divisible"

  - by bobobobo

  I want to check if a floating point value is "nearly" a multiple of 32. E.g. 64.1 is "nearly" divisible by 32, and so is 63.9. Right now I'm doing this: #define NEARLY_DIVISIBLE 0.1f float offset = fmodf( val, 32.0f ) ; if( offset < NEARLY_DIVISIBLE ) { // its near from above } // if it was 63.9, then the remainder would be large, so add some then and check again else if( fmodf( val + 2*NEARLY_DIVISIBLE, 32.0f ) < NEARLY_DIVISIBLE ) { // its near from below } Got a better way to do this?

  Read the article

• XQuery vs XSLT for transfroming data

  - by metdos

  Which one of them do you use in your applications in order to transform XML data to other data types? WHY?

  Read the article

• Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

  - by huntaub

  So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Is it good practice to call module functions directly in VB.NET?

  - by froadie

  I have a Util module in my VB.NET program that has project-wide methods such as logging and property parsing. The general practice where I work seems to be to call these methods directly without prefixing them with Util. When I was new to VB, it took me a while to figure out where these methods/functions were coming from. As I use my own Util methods now, I can't help thinking that it's a lot clearer and more understandable to add Util. before each method call (you know immediately that it's user-defined but not within the current class, and where to find it), and is hardly even longer. What's the general practice when calling procedures/functions of VB modules? Should we prefix them with the module name or not?

  Read the article

• What are the best audio and video codecs for Internet multimedia session

  - by Walidix

  Please can anyone tell me what are the best open source audio and video codecs used within an Internet multimedia session

  Read the article

• When should you use intermediate variables for expressions?

  - by froadie

  There are times that one writes code such as this: callSomeMethod(someClass.someClassMethod()); And other times when one would write the same code like this: int result = someClass.someClassMethod(); callSomeMethod(result); This is just a basic example to illustrate the point. My question isn't if you should use an intermediate variable or not, as that depends on the code and can sometimes be a good design decision and sometimes a terrible one. The question is - when would you choose one method over the other? What factors would you consider when deciding whether to use an intermediate step? (I'd assume length and understandability of the fully inlined code would have something to do with it...)

  Read the article

• How to include associative table information and still retain strong typing

  - by mwright

  I am using LINQ to SQL to create strongly typed objects in my project. Let's say I have an object that is represented by a database table. This object has a "Current State" that is kept in an associative table. I would like to make a single db call where I pull back the two tables joined but am unsure how I should be populating that information into some sort of object to preserve strong typing within my model so that the view using the information can just consume the information from the objects. I looked into creating a view model for this but it doesn't seem to quite fit. Am I thinking about this in the wrong way? What information can I include to help clarify my problem? Other details that may or may not be important: It's an MVC project....

  Read the article

• MVC Localization of Default Model Binder

  - by Dai Bok

  Hi, I am currently trying to figure out how to localize the error messages generated by MVC. Let me use the default model binder as an example, so I can explain the problem. Assuming I have a form, where a user enters thier age. The user then enters "ten" in to the form, but instead of getting the expected error of "Age must be beween 18 and 25." the message "The value 'ten' is not valid for Age." is displayed. The entity's age property is defined below: [Range(18, 25, ErrorMessageResourceType = typeof (Errors), ErrorMessageResourceName = "Age", ErrorMessage = "Range_ErrorMessage")] public int Age { get; set; } After some digging, I notice that this error text comes from the System.Web.Mvc.Resources.DefaultModelBinder_ValueInvalid in the MvcResources.resx file. Now, how can create localized versions of this file? As A solution, for example, should I download MVC source and add MvcResources.en_GB.resx, MvcResources.fr_FR.resx, MvcResources.es_ES.resx and MvcResources.de_DE.resx, and then compile my own version of MVC.dll? But I don't like this idea. Any one else know a better way?

  Read the article

• send credentials with url, possible?

  - by Dejan.S

  Hi. I got a web service that I protect with basic authentication and use ssl. to make it easy for the clients that are gone use this web service I want to skip the 401 and send the credentials with the url (I would like so the customer can access the web service with url from their code / web app), question is this possible? I know about headers but a lot of the clients gone use this do not got the proper developing team to do code. thanks

  Read the article

• R: disentangling scopes

  - by rescdsk

  Hi, Right now, in my R project, I have functions1.R with doFoo() and doBar(), functions2.R with other functions, and main.R with the main program in it, which first does source('functions1.R'); source('functions2.R'), and then calls the other functions. I've been starting the program from the R GUI in Mac OS X, with source('main.R'). This is fine the first time, but after that, the variables that were defined the first time through the program are defined for the second time functions*.R are sourced, and so the functions get a whole bunch of extra variables defined. I don't want that! I want an "undefined variable" error when my function uses a variable it shouldn't! Twice this has given me very late nights of debugging! So how do other people deal with this sort of problem? Is there something like source(), but that makes an independent namespace that doesn't fall through to the main one? Making a package seems like one solution, but it seems like a big pain in the butt compared to e.g. Python, where a source file is automatically a separate namespace. Any tips? Thank you!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >