Search Results

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

Page 129/1144 | < Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >

• How to pass non-fatal warnings from a library

  - by wRAR

  A library function parses a file and returns an object. If a parser encounters unknown data, missing values etc., it shouldn't throw an exception and stop parsing (because this is not fatal), but there should be a way to pass information about these things to a caller (so that warnings can be displayed in the UI, for example). How can these warning be returned? I'm thinking of passing a callback function/object into the library, are there any other possible solutions?

  Read the article

• Best approach to store login credentials for website

  - by Zerotoinfinite

  I have created a site in ASP.NET 3.5 & I have only 2 or 3 user login IDs who can login to the website. What would be the best way to save these login details? Which of these approaches, or others, would be most suitable? Using Forms Authentication, and saving credentials (username and password) in web.config to create a text file in directory and modify it Which approach is best from a security and maintenance perspective? What other approaches are suitable for a login system for ASP.NET?

  Read the article

• How to refactor this Ruby on Rails code?

  - by yuval

  I want to fetch posts based on their status, so I have this code inside my PostsController index action. It seems to be cluttering the index action, though, and I'm not sure it belongs here. How could I make it more concise and where would I move it in my application so it doesn't clutter up my index action (if that is the correct thing to do)? if params[:status].empty? status = 'active' else status = ['active', 'deleted', 'commented'].include?(params[:status]) ? params[:status] : 'active' end case status when 'active' #active posts are not marked as deleted and have no comments is_deleted = false comments_count_sign = "=" when 'deleted' #deleted posts are marked as deleted and have no comments is_deleted = true comments_count_sign = "=" when 'commented' #commented posts are not marked as deleted and do have comments is_deleted = false comments_count_sign = ">" end @posts = Post.find(:all, :conditions => ["is_deleted = ? and comments_count_sign #{comments_count_sign} 0", is_deleted])

  Read the article

• Are regexes really maintainable?

  - by Rich Bradshaw

  Any code I've seen that uses Regexes tends to use them as a black box: Put in string Magic Regex Get out string This doesn't seem a particularly good idea to use in production code, as even a small change can often result in a completely different regex. Apart from cases where the standard is permanent and unchanging, are regexes the way to do things, or is it better to try different methods?

  Read the article

• Should I make sure arguments aren't null before using them in a function.

  - by Nathan W

  The title may not really explain what I'm really trying to get at, couldn't really think of a way to describe what I mean. I was wondering if it is good practice to check the arguments that a function accepts for nulls or empty before using them. I have this function which just wraps some hash creation like so. Public Shared Function GenerateHash(ByVal FilePath As IO.FileInfo) As String If (FilePath Is Nothing) Then Throw New ArgumentNullException("FilePath") End If Dim _sha As New Security.Cryptography.MD5CryptoServiceProvider Dim _Hash = Convert.ToBase64String(_sha.ComputeHash(New IO.FileStream(FilePath.FullName, IO.FileMode.Open, IO.FileAccess.Read))) Return _Hash End Function As you can see I just takes a IO.Fileinfo as an argument, at the start of the function I am checking to make sure that it is not nothing. I'm wondering is this good practice or should I just let it get to the actual hasher and then throw the exception because it is null.? Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to test a site rigorously?

  - by Sarfraz

  Hello, I recently created a big portal site. It's time for putting it to test. How do you guys test a site rigorously? What are the ways and tools for that? Can we sort of mimic hundreds of virtual users visiting the site to see its load handling? The test should be for both security and speed Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Delphi: How to avoid EIntOverflow underflow when subtracting?

  - by Ian Boyd

  Microsoft already says, in the documentation for GetTickCount, that you could never compare tick counts to check if an interval has passed. e.g.: Incorrect (pseudo-code): DWORD endTime = GetTickCount + 10000; //10 s from now ... if (GetTickCount > endTime) break; The above code is bad because it is suceptable to rollover of the tick counter. For example, assume that the clock is near the end of it's range: endTime = 0xfffffe00 + 10000 = 0x00002510; //9,488 decimal Then you perform your check: if (GetTickCount > endTime) Which is satisfied immediatly, since GetTickCount is larger than endTime: if (0xfffffe01 > 0x00002510) The solution Instead you should always subtract the two time intervals: DWORD startTime = GetTickCount; ... if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 //if it's been 10 seconds break; Looking at the same math: if (GetTickCount - startTime) > 10000 if (0xfffffe01 - 0xfffffe00) > 10000 if (1 > 10000) Which is all well and good in C/C++, where the compiler behaves a certain way. But what about Delphi? But when i perform the same math in Delphi, with overflow checking on ({Q+}, {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON}), the subtraction of the two tick counts generates an EIntOverflow exception when the TickCount rolls over: if (0x00000100 - 0xffffff00) > 10000 0x00000100 - 0xffffff00 = 0x00000200 What is the intended solution for this problem? Edit: i've tried to temporarily turn off OVERFLOWCHECKS: {$OVERFLOWCHECKS OFF}] delta = GetTickCount - startTime; {$OVERFLOWCHECKS ON} But the subtraction still throws an EIntOverflow exception. Is there a better solution, involving casts and larger intermediate variable types?

  Read the article

• [Design Question] When to open a link on a new window?

  - by Ian

  Hi All, When designing a web application/web site, is there an accepted practice on when to open a link on a new window? Currently, if the site being linked to is outside the domain (say Google.com), I am always launching it on a new window. If the page being linked is within the same domain, I open it on the current active window. I've read somewhere the opening links on a new window explicitly is being frowned upon. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What are the constraints on Cocoa Framework version numbers?

  - by Joe

  We're distributing a Cocoa framework with regular updates. We'll be updating the version numbers with each release. The Apple documentation appears to suggest that version numbers should be consecutive incrementing integers. We are distributing output in several formats, and the framework is only one of them. We would rather not have to maintain a separate numbering system just for our frameworks. We don't really care about the precise format of the version numbers of the framework, so long as they change whenever the product changes, and behave in a correct and expected manner. I'm looking for a sensible and correct way of avoiding having to run a separate version number counter. One suggestion is that for product version 12.34.56 we could simply remove the dots and say the framework version is 123456. Is there a constraint on the type of number that can be represented (uint? long?) Does it have to be a number? Could it be a string? Do the numbers have to be consecutive? Is there a standard way of doing things in this situation?

  Read the article

• How to handle too many files in Qt

  - by mree

  I'm not sure how to ask this, but here goes the question: I'm migrating from J2SE to Qt. After creating some small applications in Qt, I noticed that I've created way too many files compared to what I would've create if I was developing in Java (I use Netbeans). For an example, for a GUI to Orders, I'd have to create Main Order Search Window Edit Order Dialog Manage Order Dialog Maybe some other dialogs... For Java, I don't have to create a new file for every new Dialog, the Dialog will be created in the JFrame class itself. So, I will only be seeing 1 file for Orders which has other Dialogs in it. However, in Qt, I'd have to create 1 ui file, 1 header file, 1 cpp file for each of the Dialog (I know I can just put the cpp in the header, but it's easier to view codes in seperate files). So, in the end, I might end up with 3 (if there are 3 dialogs) x3 files = 9 files for the GUI in Qt, compared to Java which is only 1 file. I do know that I can create a GUI by coding it manually. But it seems easy on small GUIs but not some on complicated GUIs with lots of inputs, tabs and etc. So, is there any suggestion on how to minimize the file created in Qt?

  Read the article

• how should i create my own 'now' / DateTime.Now ?

  - by Michel

  Hi all, i'm starting to build a part of a system which will hold a lot of DateTime validations, and a lot of 'if it was done before now' or 'if it will start in an hour etc'. Usual way to go is to use DateTime.Now to get the actual time. I predict however, that during unit test that will give me a real headache because i will have to setup my testdata for the time when the test will run in stead of use a default set of test data. So i thought: why not use my own 'now' so i can set the current datetime to any moment in time. As i don't want to set the testservers internal clock i was thinking about this solution, and i was wondering what you think of it. Base thought is that i use my own DateTime class. That class gives you the current datetime, but you can also set your own time from outside. public static class MyDateTime { private static TimeSpan _TimeDifference = TimeSpan.Zero; public static DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now + _TimeDifference; } } public static void SetNewNow(DateTime newNow) { _TimeDifference = newNow - DateTime.Now; } public static void AddToRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan ) { _TimeDifference = timeSpan; } public static void SubtractFromRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan) { _TimeDifference = - timeSpan; } }

  Read the article

• Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

  - by Mendelt

  I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

  Read the article

• Displaying performance metrics in a modern web app?

  - by Charles

  We're updating our ancient internal PHP application at work. Right now, we gather extensive performance measurements on every pageview, and log them to the database. Additionally, users requested that some of the metrics be displayed at the bottom of the page. This worked out pretty well for us, because the last thing that the application does on every request is include the file containing the HTML footer. The updated parts of the application use an MVC framework and a Dispatch/Request/Response loop. The page footer is no longer the last thing done. In fact, it could very well be the first thing done, before the rest of the page is created. Because we can grab the Response before it's returned to the user, we could try to include placeholders for the performance metrics in the footer and simply replace them with the actual numbers, but this strikes me as a bad idea somehow. How do you handle this in your modern web app? While we're using PHP, I'm curious how it's done in a Ruby/Rails app, and in your favorite Python framework.

  Read the article

• Why is hibernate open session in view considered a bad practice?

  - by HeDinges

  And what kind of alternative strategies do you use for avoiding LazyLoadExceptions? I do understand that open session in view has issues with: Layered applications running in different jvm's Transactions are committed only at the end, and most probably you would like the results before. But, if you know that your application is running on a single vm, why not ease your pain by using an open session in view strategy?

  Read the article

• Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

  - by Scott Smith

  I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

  Read the article

• How to check for undefined or null variable in javascript

  - by Thomas Wanner

  We are frequently using the following code pattern in our javascript code if(typeof(some_variable) != 'undefined' && some_variable != null) { // do something with some_variable } and I'm wondering whether there is a less verbose way of checking that has the same effect. According to some forums and literature saying simply if(some_variable) { // do something with some_variable } should have the same effect. Unfortunately, Firebug evaluates such a statement as error on runtime when some_variable is undefined, whereas the first one is just fine for him. Is this only an (unwanted) behavior of Firebug or is there really some difference between those two ways ?

  Read the article

• Benefits of arrays

  - by Vitalii Fedorenko

  As I see it, the advantages of List over array are pretty obvious: Generics provide more precise typing: List<Integer>, List<? extends Number>, List<? super Integer>. List interface has a bunch useful methods: addAll, remove etc. While for arrays all standard operations except get/set must be performed in a procedure manner by passing it to a static method. Collections offer different implementations like ArrayList, LinkedList, unmodifieable and synchronized lists, which can be hidden under common List interface. OOB length control. As disadvantages I can only mention absence of syntactic sugar and runtime type check. At the same time supporting of both structures requires frequent using of asList and toArray methods, which makes code less readable. So I am curious if there are any important benefits of using arrays that I miss.

  Read the article

• How to deal with seniors' bad coding style/practices?

  - by KaluSingh Gabbar

  I am new to work but the company I work in hires a lot of non-comp-science people who are smart enough to get the work done (complex) but lack the style and practices that should help other people read their code. For example they adopt C++ but still use C-like 3 page functions which drives new folks nuts when they try to read that. Also we feel very risky changing it as it's never easy to be sure we are not breaking something. Now, I am involved in the project with these guys and I can't change the entire code base myself or design so that code looks good, what can I do in this situation? PS we actually have 3 page functions & because we do not have a concept of design, all we can do is assume what they might have thought as there is no way to know why is it designed the way it is. I am not complaining.I am asking for suggestion,already reading some books to solve the issues Pragmatic Programmer; Design portion from B.Stroustrup; Programming and principles by B.Stroustrup;

  Read the article

• Representing xml through a single class

  - by Charles

  I am trying to abstract away the difficulties of configuring an application that we use. This application takes a xml configuration file and it can be a bit bothersome to manually edit this file, especially when we are trying to setup some automatic testing scenarios. I am finding that reading xml is nice, pretty easy, you get a network of element nodes that you can just go through and build your structures quite nicely. However I am slowly finding that the reverse is not quite so nice. I want to be able to build a xml configuration file through a single easy to use interface and because xml is composed of a system of nodes I am having a lot of struggle trying to maintain the 'easy' part. Does anyone know of any examples or samples that easily and intuitively build xml files without declaring a bunch of element type classes and expect the user to build the network themselves? For example if my desired xml output is like so <cook version="1.1"> <recipe name="chocolate chip cookie"> <ingredients> <ingredient name="flour" amount="2" units="cups"/> <ingredient name="eggs" amount="2" units="" /> <ingredient name="cooking chocolate" amount="5" units="cups" /> </ingredients> <directions> <direction name="step 1">Preheat oven</direction> <direction name="step 2">Mix flour, egg, and chocolate</direction> <direction name="step 2">bake</direction> </directions> </recipe> <recipe name="hot dog"> ... How would I go about designing a class to build that network of elements and make one easy to use interface for creating recipes? Right now I have a recipe object, an ingredient object, and a direction object. The user must make each one, set the attributes in the class and attach them to the root object which assembles the xml elements and outputs the formatted xml. Its not very pretty and I just know there has to be a better way. I am using python so bonus points for pythonic solutions

  Read the article

• C++ Singleton design pattern.

  - by Artem Barger

  Recently I've bumped into realization/implementation of Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked in the following way (I have adopted it from real life example): // a lot of methods is omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that instance field is initiated on the heap, that means there is a memory allocation. That is completely unclear for me is when does exactly memory is going to be deallocated? Or there is a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in implementation. PS. And main question how to implement it in the right way?

  Read the article

• Is VERIFY(...) a good practice in C++ coding?

  - by sevaxx

  Also, how does it compare to throwing an exception when something goes wrong ?

  Read the article

• Stateless singleton VS Static methods

  - by Sebastien Lorber

  Hey, Don't find any good answer to this simple question about helper/utils classes: Why would i create a singleton (stateless) rather than static methods? Why an object instance could be needed while the object has no state? Sometimes i really don't know what to use...

  Read the article

• Is "for(;;)" faster than "while (TRUE)"? If not, why do people use it?

  - by Chris Cooper

  for (;;) { //Something to be done repeatedly } I have seen this sort of thing used a lot, but I think it is rather strange... Wouldn't it be much clearer to say while (TRUE), or something along those lines? I'm guessing that (as is the reason for many-a-programmer to resort to cryptic code) this is a tiny margin faster? Why, and is it REALLY worth it? If so, why not just define it this way: #DEFINE while(TRUE) for(;;)

  Read the article

• Where should global Application Settings be stored on Windows 7?

  - by Kerido

  Hi everybody, I'm working hard on making my product work seamlessly on Windows 7. The problem is that there is a small set of global (not user-specific) application settings that all users should be able to change. On previous versions I used HKLM\Software\__Company__\__Product__ for that purpose. This allowed Power Users and Administrators to modify the Registry Key and everything worked correctly. Now that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have this UAC feature, by default, even an Administrator cannot access the Key for writing without elevation. A stupid solution would, of course, mean adding requireAdministrator option into the application manifest. But this is really unprofessional since the product itself is extremely far from administration-related tasks. So I need to stay with asInvoker. Another solution could mean programmatic elevation during moments when write access to the Registry Key is required. Let alone the fact that I don't know how to implement that, it's pretty awkward also. It interferes with normal user experience so much that I would hardly consider it an option. What I know should be relatively easy to accomplish is adding write access to the specified Registry Key during installation. I created a separate question for that. This also very similar to accessing a shared file for storing the settings. My feeling is that there must be a way to accomplish what I need, in a way that is secure, straightforward and compatible with all OS'es. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

  - by metdos

  Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136  | Next Page >