Search Results

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

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 123/1144 | < Previous Page | 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130  | Next Page >

  • Import RSS feed into a Typo3 template

    - by Kaaviar
    Hi, I'm a total beginner with Typo3 and would like to show a RSS feed in a Typo3 template using typoscript. And I have no idea how to do this ! Is there any way to do this quite easily ? Calling an external PHP script maybe ? Thx !

    Read the article

  • Is a "Confirm Email" input good practice when user changes email address?

    - by dibson
    My organization has a form to allow users to update their email address with us. It's suggested that we have two input boxes for email: the second as an email confirmation. I always copy/paste my email address when faced with the confirmation. I'm assuming most of our users are not so savvy. Regardless, is this considered a good practice? I can't stand it personally, but I also realize it probably isn't meant for me. If someone screws up their email, they can't login, and they must call to sort things out.

    Read the article

  • Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

    - by John Gietzen
    Here is the scenario: I have an object called a Transaction that needs to make sure that only one entity has permission to edit it at any given time. In order to facilitate a long-lived lock, I have the class generating a token object that can be used to make the edits. You would use it like this: var transaction = new Transaction(); using (var tlock = transaction.Lock()) { transaction.Update(data, tlock); } Now, I want the TransactionLock class to implement IDisposable so that its usage can be clear. But, I don't have any unmanaged resources to dispose. however, the TransctionLock object itself is a sort of "unmanaged resource" in the sense that the CLR doesn't know how to properly finalize it. All of this would be fine and dandy, I would just use IDisposable and be done with it. However, my issue comes when I try to do this in the finalizer: ~TransactionLock() { this.Dispose(false); } I want the finalizer to release the transaction from the lock, if possible. How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized? Is there a better pattern I should be using? The Transaction class looks something like this: public sealed class Transaction { private readonly object lockMutex = new object(); private TransactionLock currentLock; public TransactionLock Lock() { lock (this.lockMutex) { if (this.currentLock != null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); this.currentLock = new TransactionLock(this); return this.currentLock; } } public void Update(object data, TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); // ... } } internal void ValidateLock(TransactionLock tlock) { if (this.currentLock == null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); if (this.currentLock != tlock) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); } internal void Unlock(TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); this.currentLock = null; } } }

    Read the article

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 Optimization

    - by hgulyan
    I've learned today, if you append to your query OPTION (MAXDOP 0) your query will run on multiple processors and if it's huge query, query will perform faster. I know general guidelines on query optimizations (using indexes, selecting only needed fields etc.), my question is about SQL Server optimization. Maybe changing some options in configurations or anything else. What guidelines are there for SQL Server Optimization? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Advice on a simple Windows Form

    - by Austin Hyde
    I have a VERY simple windows form that the user uses to manage "Stores". Each store has a name and number, and is kept in a corresponding DB table. The form has a listbox of stores, an add button that creates a new store, a delete button, and an edit button. Beside those I have text boxes for the name and number, and save/cancel buttons. When the user chooses a store from the list box, and clicks 'edit', the textboxes become populated and save/cancel become active. When the user clicks 'add', I create a new Store, add it to the listbox, activate the textboxes and save/cancel buttons, then commit it to the database when the user clicks 'save', or discards it when the user clicks 'cancel'. Right now, my event system looks like this (in psuedo-code. It's just shorter that way.) add->click: store = new Store() listbox.add(store) populateAndEdit(store) delete->click: store = listbox.selectedItem db.deleteOnSubmit(store) listbox.remove(store) db.submit() edit->click: populateAndEdit(listbox.selectedItem) save->click: parseAndSave(listbox.selectedItem) db.submit() disableTexts() cancel->click: disableTexts() The problem is in how I determine if we are inserting a new Store, or updating an existing one. The obvious solution to me would be to make it a "modal" process - that is, when I click edit, I go into edit mode, and the save button does things differently than if I were in add mode. I know I could make this more MVC-like, but I don't really think this simple form merits the added complexity. I'm not very experienced with winforms, so I'm not sure if I even have the right idea for how to tackle this. Is there a better way to do this? I would like to keep it simple, but usable.

    Read the article

  • Standard Workflow when working with JPA

    - by jschoen
    I am currently trying to wrap my head around working with JPA. I can't help but feel like I am missing something or doing it the wrong way. It just seems forced so far. What I think I know so far is that their are couple of ways to work with JPA and tools to support this. You can do everything in Java using annotations, and let JPA (whatever implementation you decide to use) create your schema and update it when changes are made. You can use a tool to reverse engineer you database and generate the entity classes for you. When the schema is updated you have to regenerate these classes, or manually update them. There seems to be drawbacks to both, and benefits to both (as with all things). My question is in an ideal situation what is the standard workflow with JPA? Most schemas will require updates during the maintenance phase and especially during the development phase, so how is this handled?

    Read the article

  • What are the reasons for casting a void pointer?

    - by Maulrus
    I'm learning C++ from scratch, and as such I don't have an expert understanding of C. In C++, you can't cast a void pointer to whatever, and I understand the reasons behind that. However, I know that in C, you can. What are the possible reasons for this? It just seems like it's be a huge hole in type safety, which (to me) seems like a bad thing.

    Read the article

  • syntax for binding multiple variables within text

    - by danke
    When binding multiple variables value1 value2 value3 in the same text field, do I do this: text="{some text value1 other text value2 and other text value3}" or text="some text {value1} other text {value2} and other text {value3}" I noticed both work, but which is the right way to do it and will work all the time.

    Read the article

  • What Getters and Setters should and shouldn't do.

    - by cyclotis04
    I've run into a lot of differing opinions on Getters and Setters lately, so I figured I should make it into it's own question. A previous question of mine received an immediate comment (later deleted) that stated setters shouldn't have any side effects, and a SetProperty method would be a better choice. Indeed, this seems to be Microsoft's opinion as well. However, their properties often raise events, such as Resized when a form's Width or Height property is set. OwenP also states "you shouldn't let a property throw exceptions, properties shouldn't have side effects, order shouldn't matter, and properties should return relatively quickly." Yet Michael Stum states that exceptions should be thrown while validating data within a setter. If your setter doesn't throw an exception, how could you effectively validate data, as so many of the answers to this question suggest? What about when you need to raise an event, like nearly all of Microsoft's Control's do? Aren't you then at the mercy of whomever subscribed to your event? If their handler performs a massive amount of information, or throws an error itself, what happens to your setter? Finally, what about lazy loading within the getter? This too could violate the previous guidelines. What is acceptable to place in a getter or setter, and what should be kept in only accessor methods?

    Read the article

  • How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

    - by Roman
    At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • How do you PEP 8-name a class whose name is an acronym?

    - by Arrieta
    I try to adhere to the style guide for Python code (also known as PEP 8). Accordingly, the preferred way to name a class is using CamelCase: Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. How can I be consistent with PEP 8 if my class name is formed by two acronyms (which in proper English should be capitalized). For instance, if my class name was 'NASA JPL', what would you name it?: class NASAJPL(): # 1 class NASA_JPL(): # 2 class NasaJpl(): # 3 I am using #1, but it looks weird; #3 looks weird too, and #2 seems to violate PEP 8. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Should my validator have access to my entire model?

    - by wb
    As the title states I'm wondering if it's a good idea for my validation class to have access to all properties from my model. Ideally, I would like to do that because some fields require 10+ other fields to verify whether it is valid or not. I could but would rather not have functions with 10+ parameters. Or would that make the model and validator too coupled with one another? Here is a little example of what I mean. This code however does not work because it give an infinite loop! Class User Private m_UserID Private m_Validator Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Property Let Validator(value) Set m_Validator = value m_Validator.Initialize(Me) End Property Public Property Get Validator() Validator = m_Validator End Property Public Property Let UserID(value) m_UserID = value End property Public Property Get UserID() UserID = m_Validator.IsUserIDValid() End property End Class Class Validator Private m_User Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Sub Initialize(value) Set m_User = value End Sub Public Function IsUserIDValid() IsUserIDValid = m_User.UserID > 13 End Function End Class Dim mike : Set mike = New User mike.UserID = 123456 mike.Validator = New Validator Response.Write mike.UserID If I'm right and it is a good idea, how can I go a head and fix the infinite loop with the get property UserID? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • What's the standard behaviour for an out parameter when a TryXxxx method returns false?

    - by Matt Lacey
    Assuming a method with the following signature bool TryXxxx(object something, out int toReturn) What is it acceptable for toReturn to be if TryXxxx returns false? In that it's infered that toReturn should never be used if TryXxxx fails does it matter? If toReturn was a nulable type, then it would make sense to return null. But int isn't nullable and I don't want to have to force it to be. If toReturn is always a certain value if TryXxxx fails we risk having the position where 2 values could be considered to indicate the same thing. I can see this leading to potential possible confusion if the 'default' value was returned as a valid response (when TryXxxx returns true). From an implementation point if view it looks like having toReturn be a[ny] value is easiest, but is there anything more important to consider?

    Read the article

  • How to not over-use jQuery?

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Typical jQuery over-use: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + $(this).attr('id')); }); Which can be simplified to: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + this.id); }); Which is way faster. Can you give me any more examples of similar jQuery over-use?

    Read the article

  • If you were developing shareware softwares for windows, would you target the .Net Framework or use n

    - by bohoo
    For the sake of the question, by 'shareware' I mean a software which is relatively small in size (up to few dozens of mb) and available for download and evaluation through a web site. I'm asking this question, because I don't understand something regarding the current state of windows commercial desktop development. It seems to me that: There is no reliable statistic regarding the extent of windows systems with .Net Framework installed. It makes no sense to force the end user to install the 20-60mb .Net for an application which may be smaller. Applications conforms to the term 'shareware' above have a big share on the win os market. Much of them don't need the capabilities of low level languages like c++, and therefore ideally they should be developed with a RAD enviroment. So, One would suppose there will be a blossom of RAD enviroments for native win code. But I know about only one - Delphi, and Delphi is so unpopular. How is that?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between using IDisposable vs a destructor in C#?

    - by j0rd4n
    When would I implement IDispose on a class as opposed to a destructor? I read this article, but I'm still missing the point. My assumption is that if I implement IDispose on an object, I can explicitly 'destruct' it as opposed to waiting for the garbage collector to do it. Is this correct? Does that mean I should always explicitly call Dispose on an object? What are some common examples of this?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

    Read the article

  • Resetting Objects vs. Constructing New Objects

    - by byronh
    Is it considered better practice and/or more efficient to create a 'reset' function for a particular object that clears/defaults all the necessary member variables to allow for further operations, or to simply construct a new object from outside? I've seen both methods employed a lot, but I can't decide which one is better. Of course, for classes that represent database connections, you'd have to use a reset method rather than constructing a new one resulting in needless connecting/disconnecting, but I'm talking more in terms of abstraction classes. Can anyone give me some real-world examples of when to use each method? In my particular case I'm thinking mostly in terms of ORM or the Model in MVC. For example, if I would want to retrieve a bunch of database objects for display and modify them in one operation.

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Multiple REPLACE function in Oracle

    - by Adnan
    I am using the REPLACE function in oracle to replace values in my string like; SELECT REPLACE('THE NEW VALUE IS #VAL1#','#VAL1#','55') from dual So this is OK to replace one value, but what about 20+, should I use 20+ REPLACE function or is there a more practical solution. All ideas are welcome.

    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 | 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130  | Next Page >