Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best 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 141/1191 | < Previous Page | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Database Structure for CakePHP Models

    - by Michael T. Smith
    We're building a data tracking web app using CakePHP, and I'm having some issues getting the database structure right. We have Companies that haveMany Sites. Sites haveMany DataSamples. Tags haveAndBelongToMany Sites. That is all set up fine. The problem is "ranking" the sites within tags. We need to store it in the database as an archive. I created a Rank model that is setup like this: rank ( id (int), sample_id (int), tag_id (int), site_id (int), rank (int), total_rows) ) So, the question is, how do I create the associations for tag, site and sample to rank? I originally set them as haveMany. But the returned structures don't get me where I'd like to be. It looks like: [Site] => Array ( [Sample] = Array(), [Tag] = Array() ) When I'm really looking for: [Site] => Array ( [Tag] = Array ( [Sample] => Array ( [Rank] => Array ( ...data... ) ) ) ) I think that I may not be structuring the database properly; so if I need to update please let me know. Otherwise, how do I write a find query that gets me where I need to be? Thanks! Thoughts? Need more details? Just ask!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • [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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How do you clear your mind after 8-10 hours per day of coding?

    - by Bryan
    Related Question- Ways to prepare your mind before coding?. I'm having a hard time taking my mind off of work projects in my personal time. It's not that I have a stressful job or tight deadlines; I love my job. I find that after spending the whole day writing code & trying to solve problems, I have an extremely hard time getting it out of my mind. I'm constantly thinking about the current project/problem/task all the time. It's keeping me from relaxing, and in the long run it just builds stress. Personal projects help to some extent, but mostly just to distract me. I still have source code bouncing around my head 16 hours a day. I'm still relatively new to the workforce. Have you struggled with this, perhaps as a young developer? How did you overcome it? Can anyone offer general advice on winding down after a long programming session?

    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

  • Atomic operations on several transactionless external systems

    - by simendsjo
    Say you have an application connecting 3 different external systems. You need to update something in all 3. In case of a failure, you need to roll back the operations. This is not a hard thing to implement, but say operation 3 fails, and when rolling back, the rollback for operation 1 fails! Now the first external system is in an invalid state... I'm thinking a possible solution is to shut down the application and forcing a manual fix of the external system, but then again... It might already have used this information (and perhaps that's why it failed), or we might not have sufficient access. Or it might not even be a good way to rollback the action! Are there some good ways of handling such cases? EDIT: Some application details.. It's a multi user web application. Most of the work is done with scheduled jobs (through Quartz.Net), so most operations is run in it's own thread. Some user actions should trigger jobs that update several systems though. The external systems are somewhat unstable. I Was thinking of changing the application to use the Command and Unit Of Work pattern

    Read the article

  • Giving the script tag an ID

    - by The Code Pimp
    Hi guys, i came across a scenario where giving a <script> element an "ID" would solve a problem easily. However, after reading about the script tag at w3schools and quirksmode, it seems doing so could have some unforeseen consequences. Has anyone come across any of these issues with modern browsers such as Chrome, Safari, FF3 up and IE 7 up? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to write code after [super dealloc]? (Objective-C)

    - by Richard J. Ross III
    I have a situation in my code, where I cannot clean up my classes objects without first calling [super dealloc]. It is something like this: // Baseclass.m @implmentation Baseclass ... -(void) dealloc { [self _removeAllData]; [aVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [anotherVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [super dealloc]; } ... @end This works great. My problem is, when I went to subclass this huge and nasty class (over 2000 lines of gross code), I ran into a problem: when I released my objects before calling [super dealloc] I had zombies running through the code that were activated when I called the [self _removeAllData] method. // Subclass.m @implementation Subclass ... -(void) deallloc { [super dealloc]; [someObjectUsedInTheRemoveAllDataMethod release]; } ... @end This works great, and It didn't require me to refactor any code. My question Is this: Is it safe for me to do this, or should I refactor my code? Or maybe autorelease the objects? I am programming for iPhone if that matters any.

    Read the article

  • which version of the code below is right?

    - by TheVillageIdiot
    Hi I found this function in a utilities code file: Version 1: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { bool result = true; try { long tmp = long.Parse(strLong); } catch (Exception ex) { result = false; } return result; } I want to replace this (and validators for other types) with following: Version 2: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { long l; return long.TryParse(strLong, out l); } which version is better and why?

    Read the article

  • PHP: Where to place return 'false' value?

    - by Mike
    Is one of the following functions better than the other, in terms of where to place the 'return false' statement? Function #1: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } return false; } Function #2: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } else { return false; } } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • The Java interface doesn't declare any exception. How to manage checked exception of the implementat

    - by Frór
    Let's say I have the following Java interface that I may not modify: public interface MyInterface { public void doSomething(); } And now the class implementing it is like this: class MyImplementation implements MyInterface { public void doSomething() { try { // read file } catch (IOException e) { // what to do? } } } I can't recover from not reading the file. A subclass of RuntimeException can clearly help me, but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do: the problem is that that exception would then not be documented in the class and a user of the class would possibly get that exception an know nothing about solving this. What can I do?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay if my ViewModel 'creates' bindable user controls for my View?

    - by j0rd4n
    I have an entry-point View with a tab control. Each tab is going to have a user control embedded within it. Each embedded view inherits from the same base class and will need to be updated as a key field on the entry-point view is updated. I'm thinking the easiest way to design this page is to have the entry-point ViewModel create and expose a collection of the tabbed views so the entry-point View can just bind to the user control elements using a DataTemplate on the tab control. Is it okay for a ViewModel to instantiate and provide UI elements for its View?

    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 | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >