Search Results

Search found 9381 results on 376 pages for 'vs macros'.

Page 123/376 | < Previous Page | 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130  | Next Page >

  • Aspect Oriented Programming vs List<IAction> To execute methods based on conditions

    - by David Robbins
    I'm new to AOP so bear with me. Consider the following scenario: A state machine is used in a workflow engine, and after the state of the application is changed, a series of commands are executed. Depending on the state, different types of commands should be executed. As I see it, one implementation is to create List<IAction> and have each individual action determine whether it should execute. Would a Aspect Oriented process work as well? That is, could you create an aspect that notifies a class when a property changes, and execute the appropriate processes from that class? Would this help centralize the state specific rules?

    Read the article

  • F# ref-mutable vars vs object fields

    - by rwallace
    I'm writing a parser in F#, and it needs to be as fast as possible (I'm hoping to parse a 100 MB file in less than a minute). As normal, it uses mutable variables to store the next available character and the next available token (i.e. both the lexer and the parser proper use one unit of lookahead). My current partial implementation uses local variables for these. Since closure variables can't be mutable (anyone know the reason for this?) I've declared them as ref: let rec read file includepath = let c = ref ' ' let k = ref NONE let sb = new StringBuilder() use stream = File.OpenText file let readc() = c := stream.Read() |> char // etc I assume this has some overhead (not much, I know, but I'm trying for maximum speed here), and it's a little inelegant. The most obvious alternative would be to create a parser class object and have the mutable variables be fields in it. Does anyone know which is likely to be faster? Is there any consensus on which is considered better/more idiomatic style? Is there another option I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Appropriate uses of Monad `fail` vs. MonadPlus `mzero`

    - by jberryman
    This is a question that has come up several times for me in the design code, especially libraries. There seems to be some interest in it so I thought it might make a good community wiki. The fail method in Monad is considered by some to be a wart; a somewhat arbitrary addition to the class that does not come from the original category theory. But of course in the current state of things, many Monad types have logical and useful fail instances. The MonadPlus class is a sub-class of Monad that provides an mzero method which logically encapsulates the idea of failure in a monad. So a library designer who wants to write some monadic code that does some sort of failure handling can choose to make his code use the fail method in Monad or restrict his code to the MonadPlus class, just so that he can feel good about using mzero, even though he doesn't care about the monoidal combining mplus operation at all. Some discussions on this subject are in this wiki page about proposals to reform the MonadPlus class. So I guess I have one specific question: What monad instances, if any, have a natural fail method, but cannot be instances of MonadPlus because they have no logical implementation for mplus? But I'm mostly interested in a discussion about this subject. Thanks! EDIT: One final thought occured to me. I recently learned (even though it's right there in the docs for fail) that monadic "do" notation is desugared in such a way that pattern match failures, as in (x:xs) <- return [] call the monad's fail. It seems like the language designers must have been strongly influenced by the prospect of some automatic failure handling built in to haskell's syntax in their inclusion of fail in Monad.

    Read the article

  • <asp:Table> Vs html <table>

    - by keith
    What are the pros and cons between using the ASP.Net control compared to the old reliable table html implementation. I know that the asp:Table will end up on the returned page as a html table, and from looking into it so far people are saying its easier to work with the asp:Table in the server side code, but I'd love to hear what the stackoverflow community has to say about the matter.

    Read the article

  • #include - brackets vs quotes in XCode?

    - by Chris Becke
    In MSVC++ #include files are searched for differently depending on whether the file is enclosed in "" or <. The quoted form searches first in the local folder, then in /I specified locations, The angle bracket form avoids the local folder. This means, in MSVC++, its possible to have header files with the same name as runtime and SDK headers. So, for example, I need to wrap up the windows sdk windows.h file to undefine some macro's that cause trouble. With MSVS I can just add a (optional) windows.h file to my project as long as I include it using the quoted form :- // some .cpp file #include "windows.h" // will include my local windows.h file And in my windows.h, I can pull in the real one using the angle bracket form: // my windows.h #include <windows.h> // will load the real one #undef ConflictingSymbol Trying this trick with GCC in XCode didn't work. angle bracket #includes in system header files in fact are finding my header files with similar names in my local folder structure. The MSVC system means its quite safe to have a "String.h" header file in my own folder structre. On XCode this seems to be a major no no. Is there some way to control this search path behaviour in XCode to be more like MSVC's? Or do I just have to avoid naming any of my headers anything that might possibly conflict with a system header. Writing cross platform code and using lots of frameworks means the possibility of incidental conflicts seems large.

    Read the article

  • Good concurrency example of Java vs. Clojure

    - by Michiel Borkent
    Clojure is said to be a language that makes multi-thread programming easier. From the Clojure.org website: Clojure simplifies multi-threaded programming in several ways. Now I'm looking for a non-trivial problem solved in Java and in Clojure so I can compare/contrast their simplicity. Anyone?

    Read the article

  • Improving Javascript Load Times - Concatenation vs Many + Cache

    - by El Yobo
    I'm wondering which of the following is going to result in better performance for a page which loads a large amount of javascript (jQuery + jQuery UI + various other javascript files). I have gone through most of the YSlow and Google Page Speed stuff, but am left wondering about a particular detail. A key thing for me here is that the site I'm working on is not on the public net; it's a business to business platform where almost all users are repeat visitors (and therefore with caches of the data, which is something that YSlow assumes will not be the case for a large number of visitors). First up, the standard approach recommended by tools such as YSlow is to concatenate it, compress it, and serve it up in a single file loaded at the end of your page. This approach sounds reasonably effective, but I think that a key part of the reasoning here is to improve performance for users without cached data. The system I currently have is something like this * All javascript files are compressed and loaded at the bottom of the page * All javascript files have far future cache expiration dates, so will remain (for most users) in the cache for a long time * Pages only load the javascript files that they require, rather than loading one monolithic file, most of which will not be required Now, my understanding is that, if the cache expiration date for a javascript file has not been reached, then the cached version is used immediately; there is no HTTP request sent at to the server at all. If this is correct, I would assume that having multiple tags is not causing any performance penalty, as I'm still not having any additional requests on most pages (recalling from above that almost all users have populated caches). In addition to this, not loading the JS means that the browser doesn't have to interpret or execute all this additional code which it isn't going to need; as a B2B application, most of our users are unfortunately stuck with IE6 and its painfully slow JS engine. Another benefit is that, when code changes, only the affected files need to be fetched again, rather than the whole set (granted, it would only need to be fetched once, so this is not so much of a benefit). I'm also looking at using LabJS to allow for parallel loading of the JS when it's not cached. So, what do people think is a better approach? In a similar vein, what do you think about a similar approach to CSS - is monolithic better?

    Read the article

  • Microsoft Access vs Native SQL

    - by ktm5124
    Hypothetical: Let's say you are writing complex queries to a database and it is very important that the data you extracted is the correct result set (e.g., that you didn't mess up a JOIN by not using all the correct keys, and all the other things that can go wrong, et cetera). What would you rather use to do this? Would you write the query using Microsoft Access and its Design View, or would you write it in native SQL using a SQL IDE? What is the better professional choice? Thanks in advance your feedback!

    Read the article

  • view-port resize vs document resize in IE

    - by mkoryak
    window.resize event in IE doesnt do what i thought it does. I thought it only triggered when the physical window/view-port changed size (ie user hits maximize on the browser window for example), but it is also triggered if i change the document size, introducing scroll bars. is there any way to tell those two things apart: view port resize, and document resize without writing an elaborate hack?

    Read the article

  • 302 vs 301 redirect in this specific case

    - by Binder
    We have a website that displays information in a location based manner, i.e. it detects the IP of the visiting user and redirects him/her to an appropriate landing page; for e.g. a user coming from 'Egypt' will be redirected to http://www.mysite.com/egypt/cairo and a user visting from dubai will be redirected to http://www.mysite.com/uae/dubai, so on and so forth and we cater to multiple locations in the middle-east. Now, we have been advised by our SEO consultant that we should put a 301 (permanent redirect) on http://www.mysite.com to point to http://www.mysite.com/ksa/riyadh I would like to know the negative implications that this would have on Google indexing or otherwise, as I fundamentally disagree with this suggestion and believe that in a siutation like this a 302 redirect would be more appropriate.

    Read the article

  • Java: Tracking a user login session - Session EJBs vs HTTPSession

    - by bguiz
    If I want to keep track of a conversational state with each client using my web application, which is the better alternative - a Session Bean or a HTTP Session - to use? Using HTTP Session: //request is a variable of the class javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest //UserState is a POJO HttpSession session = request.getSession(true); UserState state = (UserState)(session.getAttribute("UserState")); if (state == null) { //create default value .. } String uid = state.getUID(); //now do things with the user id Using Session EJB: In the implementation of ServletContextListener registered as a Web Application Listener in WEB-INF/web.xml: //UserState NOT a POJO this this time, it is //the interface of the UserStateBean Stateful Session EJB @EJB private UserState userStateBean; public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent sce) { ServletContext servletContext = sce.getServletContext(); servletContext.setAttribute("UserState", userStateBean); ... In a JSP: public void jspInit() { UserState state = (UserState)(getServletContext().getAttribute("UserState")); ... } Elsewhere in the body of the same JSP: String uid = state.getUID(); //now do things with the user id It seems to me that the they are almost the same, with the main difference being that the UserState instance is being transported in the HttpRequest.HttpSession in the former, and in a ServletContext in the case of the latter. Which of the two methods is more robust, and why?

    Read the article

  • Confused about "override" vs. "new" in C#

    - by iTayb
    I'm having the following classes: class Base { public virtual void Print() { Console.WriteLine("Base"); } } class Der1 : Base { public new virtual void Print() { Console.WriteLine("Der1"); } } class Der2 : Der1 { public override void Print() { Console.WriteLine("Der2"); } } This is my main method: Base b = new Der2(); Der1 d1 = new Der2(); Der2 d2 = new Der2(); b.Print(); d1.Print(); d2.Print(); The output is Base, Der2, Der2. As far as I know, Override won't let previous method to run, even if the pointer is pointing to them. So the first line should output Der2 as well. However Base came out. How is it possible? How the override didn't work there?

    Read the article

  • ModelName(django.contrib.auth.models.User) vs ModelName(models.Model)

    - by amr.negm
    I am developing a django project. I created some apps, some of those are related to User model, for instance, I have a feeds app that handles user feeds, and another app that deals with extra user data like age, contacts, and friends. for each of these, I created a table that should be connected to the User model, which I using for storing and authenticating users. I found two ways to deal with this issue. One, is through extending User model to be like this: ModelName(User): friends = models.ManyToMany('self') ..... Two, is through adding a foreign key to the new table like this: ModelName(models.Model): user = models.ForeignKey(User, unique=True) friends = friends = models.ManyToMany('self') ...... I can't decide which to use in which case. in other words, what are the core differences between both?

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • URIs vs Hidden Forms

    - by NateDogg
    I'm working in the Codeigniter framework, and want to send requests to my controller/model that have several variables involved. Is there a difference between passing those variables via a hidden form (i.e. using "post") as opposed to passing them through URIs (e.g. 'travel/$month/$day/')? What about security concerns? e.g. URIs: http://www.example.com/travel/$month/$day/ Hidden Form: form_hidden('month',$month); form_hidden('day',$day);

    Read the article

  • C++ STL Map vs Vector speed

    - by sub
    In the interpreter for my experimental programming language I have a symbol table. Each symbol consists of a name and a value (the value can be e.g.: of type string, int, function, etc.). At first I represented the table with a vector and iterated through the symbols checking if the given symbol name fitted. Then I though using a map, in my case map<string,symbol>, would be better than iterating through the vector all the time but: It's a bit hard to explain this part but I'll try. If a variable is retrieved the first time in a program in my language, of course its position in the symbol table has to be found (using vector now). If I would iterate through the vector every time the line gets executed (think of a loop), it would be terribly slow (as it currently is, nearly as slow as microsoft's batch). So I could use a map to retrieve the variable: SymbolTable[ myVar.Name ] But think of the following: If the variable, still using vector, is found the first time, I can store its exact integer position in the vector with it. That means: The next time it is needed, my interpreter knows that it has been "cached" and doesn't search the symbol table for it but does something like SymbolTable.at( myVar.CachedPosition ). Now my (rather hard?) question: Should I use a vector for the symbol table together with caching the position of the variable in the vector? Should I rather use a map? Why? How fast is the [] operator? Should I use something completely different?

    Read the article

  • C++ arrays as parameters, subscript vs. pointer

    - by awshepard
    Alright, I'm guessing this is an easy question, so I'll take the knocks, but I'm not finding what I need on google or SO. I'd like to create an array in one place, and populate it inside a different function. I define a function: void someFunction(double results[]) { for (int i = 0; i<100; ++i) { for (int n = 0; n<16; ++n) //note this iteration limit { results[n] += i * n; } } } That's an approximation to what my code is doing, but regardless, shouldn't be running into any overflow or out of bounds issues or anything. I generate an array: double result[16]; for(int i = 0; i<16; i++) { result[i] = -1; } then I want to pass it to someFunction someFunction(result); When I set breakpoints and step through the code, upon entering someFunction, results is set to the same address as result, and the value there is -1.000000 as expected. However, when I start iterating through the loop, results[n] doesn't seem to resolve to *(results+n) or *(results+n*sizeof(double)), it just seems to resolve to *(results). What I end up with is that instead of populating my result array, I just get one value. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • LINQ extention SelectMany in 3.5 vs 4.0?

    - by Moberg
    Hi When I saw Darins suggestion here .. IEnumerable<Process> processes = new[] { "process1", "process2" } .SelectMany(Process.GetProcessesByName); ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3059667/process-getprocessesbyname/3059733#3059733 ) .. I was a bit intrigued and I tried it in VS2008 with .NET 3.5 - and it did not compiling unless I changed it to .. IEnumerable<Process> res = new string[] { "notepad", "firefox", "outlook" } .SelectMany(s => Process.GetProcessesByName(s)); Having read some Darins answers before I suspected that it was me that were the problem, and when I later got my hands on a VS2010 with.NET 4.0 - as expected - the original suggestion worked beautifully. My question is : What have happend from 3.5 to 4.0 that makes this (new syntax) possible? Is it the extentionmethods that have been extended(hmm) or new rules for lambda syntax or? I've tried to search but my google-fu was not strong enough. Please forgive if the question is a bit naive and note that I've taged it as beginner :)

    Read the article

  • VS 2008 Open Word Document - Memory Error

    - by Lord Darkside
    I am executing the following code that worked fine in a vs2003(1.1) but seems to have decided otherwise now that I'm using vs2008(2.0/3.5): Dim wordApp As Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Application Dim wordDoc As Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Document missing = System.Reflection.Missing.Value wordApp = New Microsoft.Office.Interop.Word.Application() Dim wordfile As Object wordfile = "" ' path and file name goes here wordDoc = wordApp.Documents.Open(wordfile, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing, missing) The error thrown when the Open is attempted is : "Attempted to read or write protected memory. This is often an indication that other memory is corrupt." Does anyone have any idea how to correct this?

    Read the article

  • IoC.Resolve vs Constructor Injection

    - by Omu
    I heard a lot of people saying that it is a bad practice to use IoC.Resolve(), but I never heard a good reason why (if it's all about testing than you can just mock the container, and you're done). now the advantages of using Resolve instead of Constructor Injection is that you don't need to create classes that have 5 parameters in the constructor, and whenever you are going to create a instance of that class you're not gonna need to provide it with anything

    Read the article

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