Search Results

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

Page 137/348 | < Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >

  • Scaffold default files are the best practice?

    - by antpaw
    Hey, i have some experience with MVC. but I'm new to rails. I'm using the scaffold command to generate some default files. The model looks clean and nice, but the controller and the views aren't really dry. The contents of new.html.erb and edit.html.erb are almost the same and the methods new/edit and create/update are doing almost the same thing. In other frameworks i've used only one view for updating and creating new entries and also the same method in my controller by setting the id as an optional parameter. Do they use this structure to keep things RESTful (i have not much of a clue about rest :()? Is it the best practice to use this default stuff for crud?

    Read the article

  • One executable with cmd-line params or just many satellite executables?

    - by Nikos Baxevanis
    I design an application back-end. For now, it is a .NET process (a Console Application) which hosts various communication frameworks such as Agatha and NServiceBus. I need to periodically update my datastore with values (coming from the application while it's running). I found three possible ways: Accept command line arguments, so I can call my console app with -update. On start up a background thread will periodically invoke the update method. Create an updater.exe app which will do the updates, but I will have code duplication since in some way it will need to query the data from the source in order to save it to the datastore. Which one is better?

    Read the article

  • Method hiding with interfaces

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    interface IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; } } class Foo : IFoo { int MyReadOnlyVar { get; set; } } public IFoo GetFoo() { return new Foo { MyReadOnlyVar = 1 }; } Is the above an acceptable way of implementing a readonly/immutable object? The immutability of IFoo can be broken with a temporary cast to Foo. In general (non-critical) cases, is hiding functionality through interfaces a common pattern? Or is it considered lazy coding? Or even an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid repetition when working with primitive types?

    - by I82Much
    I have the need to perform algorithms on various primitive types; the algorithm is essentially the same with the exception of which type the variables are. So for instance, /** * Determine if <code>value</code> is the bitwise OR of elements of <code>validValues</code> array. * For instance, our valid choices are 0001, 0010, and 1000. * We are given a value of 1001. This is valid because it can be made from * ORing together 0001 and 1000. * On the other hand, if we are given a value of 1111, this is invalid because * you cannot turn on the second bit from left by ORing together those 3 * valid values. */ public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { for (long validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { for (int validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } How can I avoid this repetition? I know there's no way to genericize primitive arrays, so my hands seem tied. I have instances of primitive arrays and not boxed arrays of say Number objects, so I do not want to go that route either. I know there are a lot of questions about primitives with respect to arrays, autoboxing, etc., but I haven't seen it formulated in quite this way, and I haven't seen a decisive answer on how to interact with these arrays. I suppose I could do something like: public static<E extends Number> boolean isValid(E value, List<E> numbers) { long theValue = value.longValue(); for (Number validOption : numbers) { theValue &= ~validOption.longValue(); } return theValue != 0; } and then public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } Is that really much better though? Any thoughts in this matter would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Where do you keep your code?

    - by skiphoppy
    Your code is of course checked into a repository somewhere, but where do you keep your working copy/copies? C:\Program Files isn't right, as it's for installed packages. My Documents somehow doesn't seem right, either—a My Code folder next to My Music and My Pictures? Dumping in C:\ is messy, but seems to be "working" for other people in my office.

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do you go from an abstract project description to actual code?

    - by Jason
    Maybe its because I've been coding around two semesters now, but the major stumbling block that I'm having at this point is converting the professor's project description and requirements to actual code. Since I'm currently in Algorithms 101, I basically do a bottom-up process, starting with a blank whiteboard and draw out the object and method interactions, then translate that into classes and code. But now the prof has tossed interfaces and abstract classes into the mix. Intellectually, I can recognize how they work, but am stubbing my toes figuring out how to use these new tools with the current project (simulating a web server). In my professors own words, mapping the abstract description to Java code is the real trick. So what steps are best used to go from English (or whatever your language is) to computer code? How do you decide where and when to create an interface, or use an abstract class?

    Read the article

  • Use of (non) qualified names

    - by AProgrammer
    If I want to use the name baz defined in package foo|bar|quz, I've several choices: provide fbq as a short name for foo|bar|quz and use fbq|baz use foo|bar|quz|baz import baz from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz (or an alias given in the import process) import all public symbols from foo|bar|quz|baz and then use baz For the languages I know, my perception is that the best practice is to use the first two ways (I'll use one or the other depending on the specific package full name and the number of symbols I need from it). I'd use the third only in a language which doesn't provide the first and hunt for supporting tools to write the import statements. And in my opinion the fourth should be reserved to package designed with than import in mind, for instance if all exported symbols start with a prefix or contains the name of the package. My questions: what is in your opinion the best practice for your favorite languages? what would you suggest in a new language? what would you suggest in an old language adding such a feature?

    Read the article

  • Is there a difference here?

    - by HotHead
    Please consider following code: 1. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < 0x0002) { // do something } 2. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < uint16(0x0002)) { // do something } 3. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < static_cast<uint16>(0x0002)) { // do something } 4. uint16 a = 0x0001; uint16 b = 0x0002; if(a < b) { // do something } What compiler does in backgorund and what is the best (and correct) way to do above testing? p.s. sorry, but I couldn't find the better title :) Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • PHP: Best solution for links breaking in a mod_rewrite app

    - by psil
    I'm using mod rewrite to redirect all requests targeting non-existent files/directories to index.php?url=* This is surely the most common thing you do with mod_rewrite yet I have a problem: Naturally, if the page url is "mydomain.com/blog/view/1", the browser will look for images, stylesheets and relative links in the "virtual" directory "mydomain.com/blog/view/". Problem 1: Is using the base tag the best solution? I see that none of the PHP frameworks out there use the base tag, though. I'm currently having a regex replace all the relative links to point to the right path before output. Is that "okay"? Problem 2: It is possible that the server doesn't support mod_rewrite. However, all public files like images, stylesheets and the requests collector index.php are located in the directory /myapp/public. Normally mod_rewrite points all request to /public so it seems as if public was actually the root directory too all users. However if there is no mod_rewrite, I then have to point the users to /public from the root directory with a header() call. That means, however that all links are broken again because suddenly all images, etc. have to be called via /public/myimage.jpg Additional info: When there is no mod_rewrite the above request would look like this: mydomain.com/public/index.php/blog/view/1 What would be the best solutions for both problems?

    Read the article

  • Question about design (inheritance, polymorphism)

    - by Dan
    Hi, I have a question about a problem I'm struggling with. Hope you can bear with me. Imagine I have an Object class representing the base class of a hierarchy of physical objects. Later I inherit from it to create an Object1D, Object2D and Object3D classes. Each of these derived classes will have some specific methods and attributes. For example, the 3d object might have functionality to download a 3d model to be used by a renderer. So I'd have something like this: class Object {}; class Object1D : public Object { Point mPos; }; class Object2D : public Object { ... }; class Object3D : public Object { Model mModel; }; Now I'd have a separate class called Renderer, which simply takes an Object as argument and well, renders it :-) In a similar way, I'd like to support different kinds of renderers. For instance, I could have a default one that every object could rely on, and then provide other specific renderers for some kind of objects: class Renderer {}; // Default one class Renderer3D : public Renderer {}; And here comes my problem. A renderer class needs to get an Object as an argument, for example in the constructor in order to retrieve whatever data it needs to render the object. So far so good. But a Renderer3D would need to get an Object3D argument, in order to get not only the basic attributes but also the specific attributes of a 3d object. Constructors would look like this: CRenderer(Object& object); CRenderer3D(Object3D& object); Now how do I specify this in a generic way? Or better yet, is there a better way to design this? I know I could rely on RTTI or similar but I'd like to avoid this if possible as I feel there is probably a better way to deal with this. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Using a "vo" for joined data?

    - by keithjgrant
    I'm building a small financial system. Because of double-entry accounting, transactions always come in batches of two or more, so I've got a batch table and a transaction table. (The transaction table has batch_id, account_id, and amount fields, and shared data like date and description are relegated to the batch table). I've been using basic vo-type models for each table so far. Because of this table structure structure, though, transactions will almost always be selected with a join on the batch table. So should I take the selected records and splice them into two separate vo objects, or should I create a "shared" vo that contains both batch and transaction data? There are a few cases in which batch records and/or transaction records. Are there possible pitfalls down the road if I have "overlapping" vo classes?

    Read the article

  • how to get access to private members of nested class?

    - by macias
    Background: I have enclosed (parent) class E with nested class N with several instances of N in E. In the enclosed (parent) class I am doing some calculations and I am setting the values for each instance of nested class. Something like this: n1.field1 = ...; n1.field2 = ...; n1.field3 = ...; n2.field1 = ...; ... It is one big eval method (in parent class). My intention is -- since all calculations are in parent class (they cannot be done per nested instance because it would make code more complicated) -- make the setters only available to parent class and getters public. And now there is a problem: when I make the setters private, parent class cannot acces them when I make them public, everybody can change the values and C# does not have friend concept I cannot pass values in constructor because lazy evaluation mechanism is used (so the instances have to be created when referencing them -- I create all objects and the calculation is triggered on demand) I am stuck -- how to do this (limit access up to parent class, no more, no less)? I suspect I'll get answer-question first -- "but why you don't split the evaluation per each field" -- so I answer this by example: how do you calculate min and max value of a collection? In a fast way? The answer is -- in one pass. This is why I have one eval function which does calculations and sets all fields at once.

    Read the article

  • dynamic behavior of factory class

    - by manu1001
    I have a factory class that serves out a bunch of properties. Now, the properties might come either from a database or from a properties file. This is what I've come up with. public class Factory { private static final INSTANCE = new Factory(source); private Factory(DbSource source) { // read from db, save properties } private Factory(FileSource source) { // read from file, save properties } // getInstance() and getProperties() here } What's a clean way of switching between these behaviors based on the environment. I want to avoid having to recompile the class each time.

    Read the article

  • Extension methods for encapsulation and reusability

    - by tzaman
    In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself?

    Read the article

  • asp.mvc model design

    - by Radu D
    Hi, I am pretty new to MVC and I am looking for a way to design my models. I have the MVC web site project and another class library that takes care of data access and constructing the business objects. If I have in that assembly a class named Project that is a business object and I need to display all projects in a view ... should I make another model class Project? In this case the classes will be identical. Do I gain something from doing a new model class? I don't like having in views references to objects from another dll ... but i don't like duplicating the code neither. Did you encounter the same problem?

    Read the article

  • How to properly document programming languages?

    - by roydukkey
    Where can I find information on how to properly document a programming language? What I mean is that there seems to be a standard way to document code. php.net and api.jquery.com seem to document there code the a similar way. For example, the trim() description on php.net. string trim ( string $str [, string $charlist ] ) And likewise on jquery.com .animate( properties, [ duration ], [ easing ], [ callback ] ) Does anyone even know what this syntax is called?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for Fat Client - Thin Client to use Common code?

    - by kurozakura
    Windows-based client application and web-client application(consuming the same code which windows-client uses) what is the preferable pattern for this scenario? Is it ok to have the code in the common place where both the projects and refer it as dll i.e one which is a windows app and other which is going consume the same code which windows client will be exposing.

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • keep viewdata on RedirectToAction

    - by Thomas Stock
    [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult CreateUser([Bind(Exclude = "Id")] User user) { ... db.SubmitChanges(); ViewData["info"] = "The account has been created."; return RedirectToAction("Index", "Admin"); } This doesnt keep the "info" text in the viewdata after the redirectToAction. How would I get around this issue in the most elegant way? My current idea is to put the stuff from the Index controlleraction in a [NonAction] and call that method from both the Index action and in the CreateUser action, but I have a feeling there must be a better way. Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144  | Next Page >