Search Results

Search found 31038 results on 1242 pages for 'michael best'.

Page 130/1242 | < Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >

• Where to place the login/authentication related actions in MVC

  - by rogeriopvl

  I've searched around and found that when implementing an authentication module in MVC architecture some people opt to place the login related actions in the User controller while others place it in a controller dedicated to authentication only. In pseudo-java-like code: class UserController extends Controller { public login() { //... } } Accessed with http://mydomain.com/user/login. vs. class AuthController extends Controller { public login() { //... } } Accessed with http://mydomain.com/auth/login. I would like to know which approach is better, and why. That is, if there's really any difference at all. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Is it Bad Practice to use C++ only for the STL containers?

  - by gmatt

  First a little background ... In what follows, I use C,C++ and Java for coding (general) algorithms, not gui's and fancy program's with interfaces, but simple command line algorithms and libraries. I started out learning about programming in Java. I got pretty good with Java and I learned to use the Java containers a lot as they tend to reduce complexity of book keeping while guaranteeing great performance. I intermittently used C++, but I was definitely not as good with it as with Java and it felt cumbersome. I did not know C++ enough to work in it without having to look up every single function and so I quickly reverted back to sticking to Java as much as possible. I then made a sudden transition into cracking and hacking in assembly language, because I felt I was concentrated too much attention on a much too high level language and I needed more experience with how a CPU interacts with memory and whats really going on with the 1's and 0's. I have to admit this was one of the most educational and fun experiences I've had with computers to date. For obviously reasons, I could not use assembly language to code on a daily basis, it was mostly reserved for fun diversions. After learning more about the computer through this experience I then realized that C++ is so much closer to the "level of 1's and 0's" than Java was, but I still felt it to be incredibly obtuse, like a swiss army knife with far too many gizmos to do any one task with elegance. I decided to give plain vanilla C a try, and I quickly fell in love. It was a happy medium between simplicity and enough "micromanagent" to not abstract what is really going on. However, I did miss one thing about Java: the containers. In particular, a simple container (like the stl vector) that expands dynamically in size is incredibly useful, but quite a pain to have to implement in C every time. Hence my code currently looks like almost entirely C with containers from C++ thrown in, the only feature I use from C++. I'd like to know if its consider okay in practice to use just one feature of C++, and ignore the rest in favor of C type code?

  Read the article

• Is there some common way to write and read config files?

  - by Blin

  I need my program to create and edit a config file, which would contain information about set of objects, and than read it at every execution. Is there some sort of guideline for config style that i can use?

  Read the article

• Is there a more correct type for passing in the file path and file name to a method

  - by Rihan Meij

  Hi What I mean by this question is, when you need to store or pass a URL around, using a string is probably a bad practice, and a better approach would be to use a URI type. However it is so easy to make complex things more complex and bloated. So if I am going to be writing to a file on disk, do I pass it a string, as the file name and file path, or is there a better type that will be better suited to the requirement? This code seems to be clunky, and error prone? I would also need to do a whole bit of checking if it is a valid file name, if the string contains data and the list goes on. private void SaveFile(string fileNameAndPath) { //The normal stuff to save the file }

  Read the article

• Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

  - by Caspin

  Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

  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

• How should my team decide between 3-tier and 2-tier architectures?

  - by j0rd4n

  My team is discussing the future direction we take our projects. Half the team believes in a pure 3-tier architecture while the other half favors a 2-tier architecture. Project Assumptions: Enterprise business applications Business logic needed between user and database Data validation necessary Service-oriented (prefer RESTful services) Multi-year maintenance plan Support hundreds of users 3-tier Team Favors: Persistant layer <== Domain layer <== UI layer Service boundary between at least persistant layer and domain layer. Domain layer might have service boundary between it. Translations between each layer (clean DTO separation) Hand roll persistance unless we can find creative yet elegant automation 2-tier Team Favors: Entity Framework + WCF Data Service layer <== UI layer Business logic kept in WCF Data Service interceptors Minimal translation between layers - favor faster coding So that's the high-level argument. What considerations should we take into account? What experiences have you had with either approach?

  Read the article

• How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

  - by Support - multilanguage SO

  For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

  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

• TCP Message Structure with XML

  - by metdos

  Hello Everybody, I'm sending messages over TCP/IP and on the other side I parse TCP message.For example this is one of the sent messages. $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&requestId=123&username=metdos&password=123)$EDKMSG Clarification: $DKMSG( //Start )$EDKMSG //End requestType //Parameter REQUEST_LOGIN //Parameter Value Now I also want to add an Xml file to my message. I'm considering this option: $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&xmlData= <Item id="56D@MIT" type="SIGNAL"> <Label> <Text>56D</Text> <X1>10</X1> <Y1>40</Y1> <RotateAngle>90</RotateAngle> </Label> <X1>0</X1> <Y1>20</Y1> <Width>35</Width> <Height>10</Height> <Source>sgs3lr</Source> </Item> )$EDKMSG There are problems with this way: 1-)It doesn't seem right to me. 2-)I have to handle delimeter "=" with much more care or I need to change it in parameters. What are your suggestions, thanks.

  Read the article

• Where to store global variables like file paths in java ?

  - by Jules Olléon

  In my application I use some icons. Where should I store the path of the directory containing those icons ? The icons are used in different classes so it doesn't really make sense to store them in one of those classes in particular. I read that global variables are evil, but is it acceptable to use a class (eg Commons) containing only public static final fields to store this king of data ? What solution is used in professional applications ?

  Read the article

• Learning Javascript in one weekend?

  - by dueyfinster

  Similiar to this question, I am wondering if experienced Javascript developers have any websites they use with examples to get the basics of Javascript down in 24/28 hours? I have looked at Douglas Crockford's Google Tech Talk and I bought the book "Javascript: the good parts" but I haven't had time to read it.

  Read the article

• Simple network gaming, client-server architecture planning.

  - by michal

  Hi, I'm coding simple game which I plan to make multiplayer (over the network) as my university project. I'm considering two scenarios for client-server communication: The physics (they're trivial! I should call it "collision tests" in fact :) ) are processed on server machine only. Therefore the communication looks like Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: here you go, Client1 position is now [X,Y] Client2->Server: Pressed "fire" Server->Clients: Client1 hit Client2, make Client2 disappear! server receives the event and broadcasts it to all the other clients. Client1->Server: Pressed "UP" Server->Clients: Client1 pressed "UP", recalculate his position!! [Client1 receives this one as well!] Which one is better? Or maybe none of them? :)

  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

• 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

• How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

  - by Malax

  Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

  Read the article

• What's the preferred way to use helper methods in Ruby?

  - by DR

  Disclaimer: Although I'm asking in context of a Rails application, I'm not talking about Rails helpers (i.e. view helpers) Let's say I have a helper method/function: def dispatch_job(job = {}) #Do something end Now I want to use this from several places (mostly controllers, but also a few BackgrounDRb workers) What's the preferred way to do this? I can think of two possibilities: 1. Use a class and make the helper a static method: class MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker def run MyHelper.dispatch_job(...) end end 2. Use a module and include the method into whatever class I need this functionality module MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker include MyHelper def run dispatch_job(...) end end 3. Other possibilities I don't know yet ... The first one is more Java-like, but I'm not sure if the second one is really an appropriate use of Ruby's modules.

  Read the article

• Why are there magic attributes exposed in the Servlet spec?

  - by Brabster

  It's always seemed a little at odds with the principles of Java that the Java Servlet Spec (2.5 version here) includes a set of magic attributes containing info about included resources, namely: javax.servlet.include.request_uri javax.servlet.include.context_path javax.servlet.include.servlet_path javax.servlet.include.path_info javax.servlet.include.query_string It's not even specifically pointed out in the API documentation, only in the spec where it is a must for correct implementation. This approach feels very wrong, an exposed implementation detail that clients will use and depend on. Why is this information exposed in this way?

  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

• What is a raw type and why shouldn't we use it?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Questions: What are raw types in Java, and why do I often hear that they shouldn't be used in new code? What is the alternative if we can't use raw types, and how is it better? Similar questions Should Java Raw Types be Deprecated?

  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

• 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

• 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

• best IDE for ruby on rails

  - by Sanjay

  Having moved from java to ruby, I am struggling to find a good IDE for ruby. I used eclipse on java, so I tried Aptana Studio (previously Radrails), but its not even half as good. Currently I am trying out Netbeans for Ruby. Please suggest me the best RoR IDE out there. I believe TextMate is universally accepted as the best editor on Mac OS X. I am looking for windows. So far it seems netbeans and e-texteditor are worth a try.

  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

< Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >