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 142/1191 | < Previous Page | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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 Unit Testing worth the effort?

    - by The Talking Walnut
    I am working to integrate unit testing into the development process on the team I work on and there are some skeptics. What are some good ways to convince the skeptical developers on the team of the value of Unit Testing? In my specific case we would be adding Unit Tests as we add functionality or fixed bugs. Unfortunately our code base does not lend itself to easy testing.

    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

  • Being pressured to GOTO the dark-side

    - by Dan McG
    We have a situation at work where developers working on a legacy (core) system are being pressured into using GOTO statements when adding new features into existing code that is already infected with spagetti code. Now, I understand there may be arguments for using 'just one little GOTO' instead of spending the time on refactoring to a more maintainable solution. The issue is, this isolated 'just one little GOTO' isn't so isolated. At least once every week or so there is a new 'one little GOTO' to add. This codebase is already a horror to work with due to code dating back to or before 1984 being riddled with GOTOs that would make many Pastafarians believe it was inspired by the Flying Spagetti Monster itself. Unfortunately the language this is written in doesn't have any ready made refactoring tools, so it makes it harder to push the 'Refactor to increase productivity later' because short-term wins are the only wins paid attention to here... Has anyone else experienced this issue whereby everybody agrees that we cannot be adding new GOTOs to jump 2000 lines to a random section, but continually have Anaylsts insist on doing it just this one time and having management approve it? tldr; How can one go about addressing the issue of developers being pressured (forced) to continually add GOTO statements (by add, I mean add to jump to random sections many lines away) because it 'gets that feature in quicker'? I'm beginning to fear we may loses valuable developers to the raptors over this...

    Read the article

  • Ideal way to set global uncaught exception Handler in Android

    - by Samuh
    I want to set a global uncaught exception handler for all the threads in my Android application. So, in my Application subclass I set an implementation of Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler as default handler for uncaught exceptions. Thread.setDefaultUncaughtExceptionHandler( new DefaultExceptionHandler(this)); In my implementation, I am trying to display an AlertDialog displaying appropriate exception message. However, this doesn't seem to work. Whenever, an exception is thrown for any thread which goes un-handled, I get the stock, OS-default dialog (Sorry!-Application-has-stopped-unexpectedly dialog). What is the correct and ideal way to set a default handler for uncaught exceptions? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • WSUS Updates - Best Practice

    - by What'sTheStoryWishBone
    We have an isolated enviornment of a few hundred servers in which we use WSUS to push updates too. We have thousands of updates which to manage and push to devices testing along the way to ensure the update will not break anything. What are the best practices that you all follow in your enteprise networks to ensure an update does not go out to all the machines that will break something? We currently have ours broken into customized groups for each type of machine. There is one "Test Group" which has one PC of each type which we apply updates to for error checking. Is this a similar procedure others follow or is their an easier safer way to manage the thousands of WSUS updates?

    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

  • Are protected constructors considered good practice?

    - by Álvaro G. Vicario
    I'm writing some little helper classes to handle trees. Basically, I have a node and a special root node that represents the tree. I want to keep it generic and simple. This is part of the code: <?php class Tree extends TreeNode{ public function addById($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ if( $parent = $this->findNodeById($parent_id) ){ $parent->addChildById($node_id, $generic_content); } } } class TreeNode{ public function __construct($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ // ... } protected function addChildById($node_id, $generic_content){ $this->children[] = new TreeNode($this->node_id, $node_id, $generic_content); } } $Categories = new Tree; $Categories->addById(1, NULL, $foo); $Categories->addById(2, NULL, $bar); $Categories->addById(3, 1, $gee); ?> My questions: Is it sensible to force TreeNode instances to be created through TreeNode::addById()? If it's so, would it be good practise to declare TreeNode::__construct() as private/protected?

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

  • read files from directory and filter files from Java

    - by Adnan
    The following codes goes through all directories and sub-directories and outputs just .java files; import java.io.File; public class DirectoryReader { private static String extension = "none"; private static String fileName; public static void main(String[] args ){ String dir = "C:/tmp"; File aFile = new File(dir); ReadDirectory(aFile); } private static void ReadDirectory(File aFile) { File[] listOfFiles = aFile.listFiles(); if (aFile.isDirectory()) { listOfFiles = aFile.listFiles(); if(listOfFiles!=null) { for(int i=0; i < listOfFiles.length; i++ ) { if (listOfFiles[i].isFile()) { fileName = listOfFiles[i].toString(); int dotPos = fileName.lastIndexOf("."); if (dotPos > 0) { extension = fileName.substring(dotPos); } if (extension.equals(".java")) { System.out.println("FILE:" + listOfFiles[i] ); } } if(listOfFiles[i].isDirectory()) { ReadDirectory(listOfFiles[i]); } } } } } } Is this efficient? What could be done to increase the speed? All ideas are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Same project...multiple apps?

    - by greypoint
    We have a an iPhone app project that we wish to deploy multiple times under different client names. The individual apps will be very similar but will have different resources (icon, images etc) and config settings stored in plists (server names, options etc). What is the preferred means to manage this in Xcode? Obviously we really don't want different XCode projects for each App deployment since it's 90% shared code.

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Multiple-File Template Implementation

    - by Maxpm
    With normal functions, the declaration and definition are often separated across multiple files like so: // Foo.h namespace Foo { void Bar(); } . // Foo.cpp #include "Foo.h" void Foo::Bar() { cout << "Inside function." << endl; } It is my understanding that this cannot be done with templates. The declaration and definition must not be separate because the appropriate form of the template is created "on-demand" when needed. So, how and where are templates typically defined in a multiple-file project like this? My intuition is that it would be in Foo.cpp because that's where the "meat" of functions normally is, but on the other hand it's the header file that's going to be included.

    Read the article

  • Prims vs Polys: what are the pros and cons of each?

    - by Richard Inglis
    I've noticed that most 3d gaming/rendering environments represent solids as a mesh of (usually triangular) 3d polygons. However some examples, such as Second Life, or PovRay use solids built from a set of 3d primitives (cube, sphere, cone, torus etc) on which various operations can be performed to create more complex shapes. So my question is: why choose one method over the other for representing 3d data? I can see there might be benefits for complex ray-tracing operations to be able to describe a surface as a single mathematical function (like PovRay does), but SL surely isn't attempting anything so ambitious with their rendering engine. Equally, I can imagine it might be more bandwidth-efficient to serve descriptions of generalised solids instead of arbitrary meshes, but is it really worth the downside that SL suffers from (ie modelling stuff is really hard, and usually the results are ugly) - was this just a bad decision made early in SL's development that they're now stuck with? Or is it an artefact of what's easiest to implement in OpenGL?

    Read the article

  • Correct structure and way of website versioning

    - by Saif Bechan
    Recently I use GIT to version my website. It makes it all really easy to see how my project develops and I always have save backups on different places on the web. Now my main question is if it is recommended to version your whole root of the website. I have a basic structure that looks something like this: /httpdocs /config /media /application index.php .htaccess 1) Should I use the /httpdocs folder to version, or should I use the content of the folder. 2) Is it recommended to version the media folder. In the media version I have several images for the overall layout, and some other images for the website. These imagas can be quite large. I work on these images from time to time and so they change. I hardly never need the old image again, so is this not just taking up precious storage space. I would highly appreciate just some basic recommendation on this topic.

    Read the article

  • To trigger everytime with .click()?

    - by Dejan.S
    I tried to have a .click() on a <a> to find out it wont trigger every time I click, what it suppose to do is open a dialog. That is not the only problem I would need to pass a value to my jquery to. I just cant figure this one out. I need it to be a <a> because it's gone be in a dropdown menu. Do you got any suggestions? this is the code I use so far $(document).ready(function() { $('a').click(function() { var first = "<iframe style='width: 100%; height: 100%;' src='" + need to put value here + "'</iframe>'"; $('.iframe').html(first); $('#dialog').dialog({ bgiframe: true, modal: true, height: 600, width: 1000 }); }); }); thanks guys

    Read the article

  • Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

    - by Mat Nadrofsky
    Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

    Read the article

  • Right design to validate attributes of a class instance

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    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 | 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149  | Next Page >