Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best practices'.

Page 147/1191 | < Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >

  • Request/Response pattern in SOA implementation

    - by UserControl
    In some enterprise-like project (.NET, WCF) i saw that all service contracts accept a single Request parameter and always return Response: [DataContract] public class CustomerRequest : RequestBase { [DataMember] public long Id { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class CustomerResponse : ResponseBase { [DataMember] public CustomerInfo Customer { get; set; } } where RequestBase/ResponseBase contain common stuff like ErrorCode, Context, etc. Bodies of both service methods and proxies are wrapped in try/catch, so the only way to check for errors is looking at ResponseBase.ErrorCode (which is enumeration). I want to know how this technique is called and why it's better compared to passing what's needed as method parameters and using standard WCF context passing/faults mechanisms?

    Read the article

  • Is this multi line if statement too complex?

    - by AndHeCodedIt
    I am validating input on a form and attempting to prompt the user of improper input(s) based on the combination of controls used. For example, I have 2 combo boxes and 3 text boxes. The 2 combo boxes must always have a value other than the first (default) value, but one of three, or two of three, or all text boxes can be filled to make the form valid. In one such scenario I have a 6 line if statement to try to make the test easily readable: if ((!String.Equals(ComboBoxA.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_A_CHOICE.ToString()) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxA.Text) && !String.Equals(ComboBoxB.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_B_CHOICE.ToString())) || (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxB.Text) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxC.Text))) { //Do Some Validation } I have 2 questions: Should this type of if statement be avoided at all cost? Would it be better to enclose this test in another method? (This would be a good choice as this validation will happen in more than one scenario) Thanks for your input(s)!

    Read the article

  • SELECT product from subclass: How many queries do I need?

    - by Stefano
    I am building a database similar to the one described here where I have products of different type, each type with its own attributes. I report a short version for convenience product_type ============ product_type_id INT product_type_name VARCHAR product ======= product_id INT product_name VARCHAR product_type_id INT -> Foreign key to product_type.product_type_id ... (common attributes to all product) magazine ======== magazine_id INT title VARCHAR product_id INT -> Foreign key to product.product_id ... (magazine-specific attributes) web_site ======== web_site_id INT name VARCHAR product_id INT -> Foreign key to product.product_id ... (web-site specific attributes) This way I do not need to make a huge table with a column for each attribute of different product types (most of which will then be NULL) How do I SELECT a product by product.product_id and see all its attributes? Do I have to make a query first to know what type of product I am dealing with and then, through some logic, make another query to JOIN the right tables? Or is there a way to join everything together? (if, when I retrieve the information about a product_id there are a lot of NULL, it would be fine at this point). Thank you

    Read the article

  • One class per file rule in .NET?

    - by Joan Venge
    I follow this rule but some of my colleagues disagree with it and argue that if a class is smaller it can be left in the same file with other class(es). Another argument I hear all the time is "Even Microsoft don't do this, so why should we?" What's the general consensus on this? Are there cases where this should be avoided?

    Read the article

  • #Define Compiler Directive in C#

    - by pm_2
    In C, I could declare a compiler directive as follows: #define MY_NUMBER 10 However, in C#, I only appear to be able to do this: #define MY_NUMBER Which is obviously useless in this case. Is this correct, or am I doing something wrong? If not, can anyone suggest a way of doing this, either at namespace or solution level? I thought of maybe creating a static class, but that seems to be overkill for one value.

    Read the article

  • How to provide global functionality in multi-user database app

    - by Mike B
    I have been building a multi-user database application (in C#/WPF 4.0) that manages tasks for all employees of a company. I now need to add some functionality such as sending an email reminder to someone when a critical task is due. How should this be done? Obviously I don’t want every instance of the program to be performing this function (Heh each user would get 10+ emails). Should I add the capability to the application as a "Mode" and then run a copy on the database server in this mode or would it be better to create a new app altogether to perform "Global" type tasks? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Building a life-critical System using Agile

    - by Ben Breen
    Looking at the general trend of comments in my question about Building an Aircraft using Agile, the biggest problem other than cost appears to be safety. Do people feel that it is not possible to build a safe system (or prove it is safe) using agile? Doesn’t all the iterative testing mitigate this? Is it likely that a piece of software developed using agile will never be as reliable as counterparts such as waterfall?

    Read the article

  • Should every class have its own namespace?

    - by thehouse
    Something that has been troubling me for a while: The current wisdom is that types should be kept in a namespace that only contains functions which are part of the type's non-member interface (see C++ Coding Standards Sutter and Alexandrescu or here) to prevent ADL pulling in unrelated definitions. Does this imply that all classes must have a namespace of their own? If we assume that a class may be augmented in the future by the addition of non-member functions, then it can never be safe to put two types in the same namespace as either one of them may introduce non-member functions that could interfere with the other. The reason I ask is that namespaces are becoming cumbersome for me. I'm writing a header-only library and I find myself using classes names such as project::component::class_name::class_name. Their implementations call helper functions but as these can't be in the same namespace they also have to be fully qualified!

    Read the article

  • Books on Debugging Techniques?

    - by zooropa
    Are there any books on debugging techniques? A friend of mine is learning to code and he asked me this question. I told him I don't know of any. Is it that you just have to go through the School of Hard Knocks to learn?

    Read the article

  • Finding relative libraries when using symlinks to ruby executables

    - by dgtized
    Imagine you have an executable foo.rb, with libraries bar.rb layed out in the following manner: <root>/bin/foo.rb <root>/lib/bar.rb In the header of foo.rb you place the following require to bring in functionality in bar.rb: require File.dirname(__FILE__)+"../lib/bar.rb" This works fine so long as all calls to foo.rb are direct. If you put as say $HOME/project, and symlink foo.rb into $HOME/usr/bin, then __FILE__ resolves to $HOME/usr/bin/foo.rb, and is thus unable to locate bar.rb in relation to the dirname for foo.rb. I realize that packaging systems such as rubygems fix this by creating a namespace to search for the library, and that it is also possible to adjust the load_path using $: to include $HOME/project/lib, but it seems as if a more simple solution should exist. Has anyone had experience with this problem and found a useful solution or recipe?

    Read the article

  • Number of characters recommended for a statement

    - by liaK
    Hi, I have been using Qt 4.5 and so do C++. I have been told that it's a standard practice to maintain the length of each statement in the application to 80 characters. Even in Qt creator we can make a right border visible so that we can know whether we are crossing the 80 characters limit. But my question is, Is it really a standard being followed? Because in my application, I use indenting and all, so it's quite common that I cross the boundary. Other cases include, there might be a error statement which will be a bit explanatory one and which is in an inner block of code, so it too will cross the boundary. Usually my variable names look bit lengthier so as to make the names meaningful. When I call the functions of the variable names, again I will cross. Function names will not be in fewer characters either. I agree a horizontal scroll bar shows up and it's quite annoying to move back and forth. So, for function calls including multiple arguments, when the boundary is reached I will make the forth coming arguments in the new line. But besides that, for a single statement (for e.g a very long error message which is in double quotes " " or like longfun1()->longfun2()->...) if I use an \ and split into multiple lines, the readability becomes very poor. So is it a good practice to have those statement length restrictions? If this restriction in statement has to be followed? I don't think it depends on a specific language anyway. I added C++ and Qt tags since if it might. Any pointers regarding this are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Python: Calling method A from class A within class B?

    - by Tommo
    There are a number of questions that are similar to this, but none of the answers hits the spot - so please bear with me. I am trying my hardest to learn OOP using Python, but i keep running into errors (like this one) which just make me think this is all pointless and it would be easier to just use methods. Here is my code: class TheGUI(wx.Frame): def __init__(self, title, size): wx.Frame.__init__(self, None, 1, title, size=size) # The GUI is made ... textbox.TextCtrl(panel1, 1, pos=(67,7), size=(150, 20)) button1.Bind(wx.EVT_BUTTON, self.button1Click) self.Show(True) def button1Click(self, event): #It needs to do the LoadThread function! class WebParser: def LoadThread(self, thread_id): #It needs to get the contents of textbox! TheGUI = TheGUI("Text RPG", (500,500)) TheParser = WebParser TheApp.MainLoop() So the problem i am having is that the GUI class needs to use a function that is in the WebParser class, and the WebParser class needs to get text from a textbox that exists in the GUI class. I know i could do this by passing the objects around as parameters, but that seems utterly pointless, there must be a more logical way to do this that doesn't using classes seem so pointless? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Arguments against Create or Update

    - by Nix
    Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

    Read the article

  • Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

    - by Chris
    I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

    Read the article

  • Why cast null before checking if object is equal to null?

    - by jacerhea
    I was looking through the "Domain Oriented N-Layered .NET 4.0 Sample App" project and ran across some code that I do not understand. In this project they often use syntax like the following to check arguments for null: public GenericRepository(IQueryableContext context,ITraceManager traceManager) { if (context == (IQueryableContext)null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context", Resources.Messages.exception_ContainerCannotBeNull); Why would you cast null to the type of the object you are checking for null?

    Read the article

  • Should you always write code for else cases that "can never happen"?

    - by johnswamps
    Take some code like if (person.IsMale()) { doGuyStuff(); } else { doGirlOtherStuff(); } (Yes, I realize this is bad OO code, it's an example) Should this be written so that to explicitly check if person.isFemale(), and then add a new else that throws an exception? Or maybe you're checking values in an enum, or something like that. You think that no one will add new elements to the enum, but who knows? "Can never happen" sounds like famous last words.

    Read the article

  • Are upper bounds of indexed ranges always assumed to be exclusive?

    - by polygenelubricants
    So in Java, whenever an indexed range is given, the upper bound is almost always exclusive. From java.lang.String: substring(int beginIndex, int endIndex) Returns a new string that is a substring of this string. The substring begins at the specified beginIndex and extends to the character at index endIndex - 1 From java.util.Arrays: copyOfRange(T[] original, int from, int to) from - the initial index of the range to be copied, inclusive to - the final index of the range to be copied, exclusive. From java.util.BitSet: set(int fromIndex, int toIndex) fromIndex - index of the first bit to be set. toIndex - index after the last bit to be set. As you can see, it does look like Java tries to make it a consistent convention that upper bounds are exclusive. My questions are: Is this the official authoritative recommendation? Are there notable violations that we should be wary of? Is there a name for this system? (ala "0-based" vs "1-based")

    Read the article

  • Which user account to assign as owner when attaching an SQL Server database?

    - by FreshCode
    This is a simple database security & performance question, but I've always used either a special user (eg. mydbuser), or Windows' built-in NETWORK SECURITY account as the owner when attaching databases to my SQL Server instances. When deploying my database to a production server, is there a specific user I should stick to or avoid? I would think that using an account with a set password could open the database up to a potential security issue.

    Read the article

  • Could this be considered a well-written PHP5 class?

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I have been learning OOP principals on my own for a while, and taken a few cracks at writing classes. What I really need to know now is if I am actually using what I have learned correctly, or if I could improve as far as OOP is concerned. I have chopped a massive portion of code out of a class that I have been working on for a while now, and pasted it here. To all you skilled and knowledgeable programmers here I ask: Am I doing it wrong? class acl extends genericAPI{ // -- Copied from genericAPI class protected final function sanityCheck($what, $check, $vars){ switch($check){ case 'set': if(isset($vars[$what])){return(1);}else{return(0);} break; } } // --------------------------------- protected $db = null; protected $dataQuery = null; public function __construct(Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array()){ $this->db = $db; if(!empty($config)){$this->config = $config;} } protected function _buildQuery($selectType = null, $vars = array()){ // Removed switches for simplicity sake $this->dataQuery = $this->db->select( )->from( $this->config['table_users'], array('tf' => '(CASE WHEN count(*) > 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)') )->where( $this->config['uidcol'] . ' = ?', $vars['uid'] ); } protected function _sanityRun_acl($sanitycheck, &$vars){ switch($sanitycheck){ case 'uid_set': if(!$this->sanityCheck('uid', 'set', $vars)){ throw new Exception(ERR_ACL_NOUID); } $vars['uid'] = settype($vars['uid'], 'integer'); break; } } private function user($action = null, $vars = array()){ switch($action){ case 'exists': $this->_sanityRun_acl('uid_set', $vars); $this->_buildQuery('user_exists_idcheck', $vars); return($this->db->fetchOne($this->dataQuery->__toString())); break; } } public function user_exists($uid){ return($this->user('exists', array('uid' => $uid))); } } $return = $acl_test->user_exists(1);

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to initialize array in C/C++?

    - by sand
    I recently encountered a case where I need to compare two files (golden and expected) for verification of test results and even though the data written to both the files were same, the files does not match. On further investigation, I found that there is a structure which contains some integers and a char array of 64 bytes, and not all the bytes of char array were getting used in most of the cases and unused fields from the array contain random data and that was causing the mismatch. This brought me ask the question whether it is good practice to initialize the array in C/C++ as well, as it is done in Java?

    Read the article

  • What the reasons for/against returning 0 from main in ISO C++?

    - by Maulrus
    I know that the C++ standard says that return 0 is inserted at the end of main() if no return statement is given; however, I often see recently-written, standard-conforming C++ code that explicitly returns 0 at the end of main(). For what reasons would somebody want to explicitly return 0 if it's automatically done by the compiler?

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream instance timing help

    - by rod
    Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

    Read the article

  • What's a unit test? [closed]

    - by Tyler
    Possible Duplicates: What is unit testing and how do you do it? What is unit testing? I recognize that to 95% of you, this is a very WTF question. So. What's a unit test? I understand that essentially you're attempting to isolate atomic functionality but how do you test for that? When is it necessary? When is it ridiculous? Can you give an example? (Preferably in C? I mostly hear about it from Java devs on this site so maybe this is specific to Object Oriented languages? I really don't know.) I know many programmers swear by unit testing religiously. What's it all about? EDIT: Also, what's the ratio of time you typically spend writing unit tests to time spent writing new code?

    Read the article

  • Should I *always* import my file references into the database in drupal?

    - by sprugman
    I have a cck type with an image field, and a unique_id text field. The file name of the image is based on the unique_id. All of the content, including the image itself is being generated automatically via another process, and I'm parsing what that generates into nodes. Rather than creating separate fields for the id and the image, and doing an official import of the image into the files table, I'm tempted to only create the id field and create the file reference in the theme layer. I can think of pros and cons: 1) Theme Layer Approach Pros: makes the import process much less complex don't have to worry about syncing the db with the file system as things change more flexible -- I can move my images around more easily if I want Cons: maybe not as much The Drupal Way™ not as pure -- I'll wind up with more logic on the theme side. 2) Import Approach Pros: import method is required if we ever wanted to make the files private (we won't.) safer? Maybe I'll know if there's a problem with the image at import time, rather than view time. Since I'll be bulk importing, that might make a difference. if I delete a node through the admin interface, drupal might be able to delete the file for me, as well. Con: more complex import and maintenance All else being equal, simpler is always better, so I'm leaning toward #1. Are there any other issues I'm missing? (Since this is an open ended question, I guess I'll make it a community wiki, whatever that means.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >