Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns practices'.

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 128/348 | < Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >

  • Pattern for managing reference count and object life

    - by Gopalakrishnan Subramani
    We have a serial port which is connected to hundreds of physical devices on the same wire. We have protocols like Modbus and Hart to handle the request and response between the application and devices. The question is related to managing the reference count of the channel. When no device is using the channel, the channel should be closed. public class SerialPortChannel { int refCount = 0; public void AddReference() { refCount++; } public void ReleaseReference() { refCount--; if (refCount <= 0) this.ReleasePort(); //This close the serial port } } For each device connected, we create a object for the device like device = new Device(); device.Attach(channel); //this calls channel.AddReference() When the device disconnect, device.Detach(channel); //this calls channel.ReleaseReference() I am not convinced by the reference count model. Are there any better way to handle this problem in .NET World?

    Read the article

  • Using the using statement with WinForms... Good Practice?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I understand the concept and reasons behind using the using statement, and I use it with things like file resources and remote connections, I was wondering if it is good practice to use the using statement with WinForm forms and dialogs? using (MyDialog dlg = new MyDialog()) { if (dlg.ShowDialog() == EDialogResult.OK) { // Do Something } } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is this a well known design pattern? what is it's name

    - by GenEric35
    Hi I have seen this often in code, but when I speak of it i don't know the name of such 'pattern' I have a method with 2 arguments that calls an overloaded method that has 3 arguments and intentionality sets the 3rd one to empty string. public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber) { CreateContact(name, phoneNumber, string.Empty) } public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber, string emailAddress) { //do the work } The reason I'm doing this is I to not duplicate code, and allow the existing callers to still call the method that has only 2 parameters. I have associate a few tags to this question, but it probably fit in more categories of questions. Is this a pattern, and does it have a name?

    Read the article

  • Sharing a connection string

    - by coure06
    hi, I am developing a class library (C#) that i will use it for my different projects (later). My class library dll will use the connection string /data context of the project which will reference my new dll. How can i do it? Lets say i have a class Library Project named "CLP", and a website project "WP". I can add reference to CLP.dll file but how i will pass a connection string/data context object to that dll? as CLP.dll will access db based on the connection string of the "WP". Not sure my problem is clear or not!

    Read the article

  • Can the Singleton be replaced by Factory?

    - by lostiniceland
    Hello Everyone There are already quite some posts about the Singleton-Pattern around, but I would like to start another one on this topic since I would like to know if the Factory-Pattern would be the right approach to remove this "anti-pattern". In the past I used the singleton quite a lot, also did my fellow collegues since it is so easy to use. For example, the Eclipse IDE or better its workbench-model makes heavy usage of singletons as well. It was due to some posts about E4 (the next big Eclipse version) that made me start to rethink the singleton. The bottom line was that due to this singletons the dependecies in Eclipse 3.x are tightly coupled. Lets assume I want to get rid of all singletons completely and instead use factories. My thoughts were as follows: hide complexity less coupling I have control over how many instances are created (just store the reference I a private field of the factory) mock the factory for testing (with Dependency Injection) when it is behind an interface In some cases the factories can make more than one singleton obsolete (depending on business logic/component composition) Does this make sense? If not, please give good reasons for why you think so. An alternative solution is also appreciated. Thanks Marc

    Read the article

  • Is It Incorrect to Make Domain Objects Aware of The Data Access Layer?

    - by Noah Goodrich
    I am currently working on rewriting an application to use Data Mappers that completely abstract the database from the Domain layer. However, I am now wondering which is the better approach to handling relationships between Domain objects: Call the necessary find() method from the related data mapper directly within the domain object Write the relationship logic into the native data mapper (which is what the examples tend to do in PoEAA) and then call the native data mapper function within the domain object. Either it seems to me that in order to preserve the 'Fat Model, Skinny Controller' mantra, the domain objects have to be aware of the data mappers (whether it be their own or that they have access to the other mappers in the system). Additionally it seems that Option 2 unnecessarily complicates the data access layer as it creates table access logic across multiple data mappers instead of confining it to a single data mapper. So, is it incorrect to make the domain objects aware of the related data mappers and to call data mapper functions directly from the domain objects? Update: These are the only two solutions that I can envision to handle the issue of relations between domain objects. Any example showing a better method would be welcome.

    Read the article

  • logic of button to be disabled or not in mvc

    - by rod
    Hi All, Here's an excerpt from a book I'm reading about application design with MVC: Ideally, the view is so simple and logic-free as to need virtually no testing. Users (and developers before users) can reasonably test the view by simply looking at the pixels on the screen. Anything else beyond pure graphical rendering should ideally be taken out of the view and placed in the controller and model. This includes, for example, the logic that determines whether a certain button should be enabled or grayed out at some point. what does the bold statement mean to you? what would this look like? thanks, rod.

    Read the article

  • quantity of measurable units design pattern

    - by Berryl
    Hello I am thinking through a nice pattern to be useful across domains of measurable units (ie, Length, Time) and came up with the following use case and initial classes, and of course, questions! 1) Does a Composite pattern help or complicate? 2) Should the Convert method(s) in the ComposityNode be a separate converter class? All comments appreciated. Cheers, Berryl Example Use Case: var inch = new ConvertableUnit("inch", 1) var foot = new ConvertableUnit("foot", 12) var imperialUnits = new CompositeConvertableUnit("imperial units", .024) imperialUnits.AddChild(inch) imperialUnits.AddChild(foot) var meter = new ConvertableUnit("meter", 1) var millimeter = new ConvertableUnit("millimeter ", .001) var imperialUnits = new CompositeConvertableUnit("metric units", 1) imperialUnits.AddChild(meter) imperialUnits.AddChild(millimeter) var oneInch = new Quantity(1, inch); var oneFoot = new Quantity(1, foot); oneFoot.ToBase() // "12 inches" var oneMeter = new Quantity(1, meter); oneInch.ToBase() // .024 meters Possible Solution ConvertableUnit : Node double Rate string Name Quantity ConvertableUnit Unit double Amount CompositeConvertableUnit : Node ISet<ConvertableUnit> _children ConvertableUnit BaseUnit {get{ return _children.Where(c=>c.Rate == 1).First() } } Quantity ConvertTo(Quantity from, Quantity to) Quantity ToBase(Quantity from);

    Read the article

  • What is the best way in assigning foreign key when using entity framework & LINQ to Entities?

    - by Abdel Olakara
    Hi all, I need to know the best practice of creating an entity object and assigning the foreign key. Here is my scenario. I have a Product table with pid,name,unit_price etc.. I also have a Rating table with pid (foregin key),rate,votes etc... Currently i am doing the following to create the rating object: var prod = entities.Product.First(p => p.product_id == pid); prod.Rating.Load(); if (prod.Rating != null) { log.Info("Rating already exists!"); // set values and Calcuate the score } else { log.Info("New Rating!!!"); Rating rating = new Rating(); // set values and do inital calculation prod.Rating = rating; } entities.SaveChanges(); Even though this works fine, i would like to know the best practice in doing these kind of assignment. Thanks for your suggestions and info. Best Regards, Abdel Olakara

    Read the article

  • Optimal UI For Single Zip Code Entry on iPhone

    - by sylvanaar
    I need to prompt the user to enter his/her zip code at certain times in my iPhone application. I cannot store it or get it from the user's current location. What is the optimal input method? I started with a 5 wheel picker. This seemed like a bad direction, so I opted for a PIN-like entry screen. My implepentation is about the same as the 'enter passcode' screen you see when unlocking the iphone - including automatically ending input on the 5th digit instead of providing a return/enter button. Does this seem optimal? Or is there a better way? Note: I only need to accept a 5 digit US zip code.

    Read the article

  • How Can I up my Street Cred in the coding world

    - by RedEye
    I know this isn't directly related to a specific coding problem. It's a more general programming question. I'm a n00b... Been coding for 1 year, and it's where I belong. I want to get hardcore and put everything I have into it. I started with C++ and now I'm into C#. I love it all. What can I do to up my game and up my respect in the programming world?

    Read the article

  • Disposing underlying object from finalizer in an immutable object

    - by Juan Luis Soldi
    I'm trying to wrap around Awesomium and make it look to the rest of my code as close as possible to NET's WebBrowser since this is for an existing application that already uses the WebBrowser. In this library, there is a class called JSObject which represents a javascript object. You can get one of this, for instance, by calling the ExecuteJavascriptWithResult method of the WebView class. If you'd call it like myWebView.ExecuteJavascriptWithResult("document", string.Empty).ToObject(), then you'd get a JSObject that represents the document. I'm writing an immutable class (it's only field is a readonly JSObject object) called JSObjectWrap that wraps around JSObject which I want to use as base class for other classes that would emulate .NET classes such as HtmlElement and HtmlDocument. Now, these classes don't implement Dispose, but JSObject does. What I first thought was to call the underlying JSObject's Dispose method in my JSObjectWrap's finalizer (instead of having JSObjectWrap implement Dispose) so that the rest of my code can stay the way it is (instead of having to add using's everywhere and make sure every JSObjectWrap is being properly disposed). But I just realized if more than two JSObjectWrap's have the same underlying JSObject and one of them gets finalized this will mess up the other JSObjectWrap. So now I'm thinking maybe I should keep a static Dictionary of JSObjects and keep count of how many of each of them are being referenced by a JSObjectWrap but this sounds messy and I think could cause major performance issues. Since this sounds to me like a common pattern I wonder if anyone else has a better idea.

    Read the article

  • Binning a numeric variable in R

    - by McPeterson
    I have a vector X that contains positive numbers that I want to bin/discretize. For this vector, I want the numbers [0, 10) to show up just as they exist in the vector, but numbers [10,∞) to be 10+. I'm using: x <- c(0,1,3,4,2,4,2,5,43,432,34,2,34,2,342,3,4,2) binned.x <- as.factor(ifelse(x > 10,"10+",x)) but this feels klugey to me. Does anyone know a better solution or a different approach? mcpeterson

    Read the article

  • Decorator pattern in C++

    - by AlgoMan
    Can someone give me an example of Decorator pattern in C++ ? I have come across the Java version of it. But C++ i have found it difficult to understand the examples that are given.

    Read the article

  • How to handle multiple delegates

    - by mac_55
    I've got a view in my app that does pretty much everything, and I like it that way. The problem however is that it's implementing 5 or 6 different delegates, which seems a little bit messy. My question is, does the view controller have to implement all of the delegates? or is there some way I can separate the code out into different files (without having to do a major restructure or rewrite)? Here's all the delegates I'm implementing: @interface MyView : UIViewController <UIScrollViewDelegate, UIImagePickerControllerDelegate, UINavigationControllerDelegate, UIActionSheetDelegate, MFMailComposeViewControllerDelegate>

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • doubleton pattern in C++

    - by benjamin button
    I am aware of the singleton pattern in C++. but what is the logic to get two instances of the object? is there any such pattern where we could easily get 2 pattern. for the logic i could think of is that i can change the singleton pattern itself to have two objects created inside the class.this works. but if the requirement grows like if i need only 3 or only 4 what is the deswign pattern that i could think of to qualify such requirement?

    Read the article

  • How to Manage CSS Explosion

    - by Jason
    I have been heavily relying on CSS for a website that I am working on (currently, everything is done as property values within each tag on the website and I'm trying to get away from that to make updates significantly easier). The problem I am running into, is I'm starting to get a bit of "CSS explosion" going on. It is becoming difficult for me to decide how to best organize and abstract data within the CSS file. For example: I am using a large number of div tags within the website (previously it was completely tables based). So I'm starting to get a lot of CSS that looks like this... div.title { background-color: Blue; color: White; text-align: center; } div.footer { /* Stuff Here */ } div.body { /* Stuff Here */ } etc. It's not too bad yet, but since I am learning here, I was wondering if recommendations could be made on how best to organize the various parts of a CSS file. What I don't want to get to is where I have a separate CSS attribute for every single thing on my website (which I have seen happen), and I always want the CSS file to be fairly intuitive. (P.S. I do realize this is a very generic, high-level question. My ultimate goal is to make it easy to use the CSS files and demonstrate their power to increase the speed of web development so other individuals that may work on this site in the future will also get into the practice of using them rather than hard-coding values everywhere.)

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • Passing data structures to different threads

    - by Robb
    I have an application that will be spawning multiple threads. However, I feel there might be an issue with threads accessing data that they shouldn't be. I'm relatively new to threading so bare with me. Here is the structure of the threaded application (sorry for the crudeness): MainThread / \ / \ / \ Thread A Thread B / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ Thread A_1 Thread A_2 Thread B_1 Thread B_2 Under each lettered thread (which could be many), there will only be two threads and they are fired of sequentially. The issue i'm having is I'm not entirely sure how to pass in a datastructure into these threads. So, the datastructure is created in MainThread, will be modified in the lettered thread (Thread A, etc) specific to that thread and then a member variable from that datastructure is sent to Letter_Numbered threads. Currently, the lettered thread class has a member variable and when the class is constructed, the datastructure from mainthread is passed in by reference, invoking the copy constructor so the lettered thread has it's own copy to play with. The lettered_numbered thread simply takes in a string variable from the data structure within the lettered thread. My question is, is this accceptable? Is there a much better way to ensure each lettered thread gets its own data structure to play with? Sorry for the somewhat poor explanation, please leave comments and i'll try to clarify.

    Read the article

  • Asp.Net MVC2 TekPub Starter Site methodology question

    - by Pino
    Ok I've just ran into this and I was only supposed to be checking my emails however I've ended up watching this (and not far off subscribing to TekPub). http://tekpub.com/production/starter Now these app is a great starting point, but it raises one issue for me and the development process I've been shown to follow (rightly or wrongly). There is no conversion from the LinqToSql object when passing data to the view. Are there any negitives to this? The main one I can see is with validation, does this cause issues when using MVC's built in validation as this is somthing we use extensivly. Because we are using the built in objects generated by LinqToSql how would one go about adding validation, like [Required(ErrorMessage="Name is Required")] public string Name {get;set;} Interested to understand the benifits of this methodology and any negitives that, should we take it on, experiance through the development process.

    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 | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >