Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns 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 152/348 | < Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • Is it against best practice to throw Exception on most JUnit tests?

    - by Chris Knight
    Almost all of my JUnit tests are written with the following signature: public void testSomething() throws Exception My reasoning is that I can focus on what I'm testing rather than exception handling which JUnit appears to give me for free. But am I missing anything by doing this? Is it against best practice? Would I gain anything by explicitly catching specific exceptions in my test and then fail()'ing on them?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Is a "Confirm Email" input good practice when user changes email address?

    - by dibson
    My organization has a form to allow users to update their email address with us. It's suggested that we have two input boxes for email: the second as an email confirmation. I always copy/paste my email address when faced with the confirmation. I'm assuming most of our users are not so savvy. Regardless, is this considered a good practice? I can't stand it personally, but I also realize it probably isn't meant for me. If someone screws up their email, they can't login, and they must call to sort things out.

    Read the article

  • Passing objects by reference or not in C#

    - by Piku
    Suppose I have a class like this: public class ThingManager { List<SomeClass> ItemList; public void AddToList (SomeClass Item) { ItemList.Add(Item); } public void ProcessListItems() { // go through list one item at a time, get item from list, // modify item according to class' purpose } } Assume "SomeClass" is a fairly large class containing methods and members that are quite complex (List<s and arrays, for example) and that there may be a large quantity of them, so not copying vast amounts of data around the program is important. Should the "AddToList" method have "ref" in it or not? And why? It's like trying to learn pointers in C all over again ;-) (which is probably why I am getting confused, I'm trying to relate these to pointers. In C it'd be "SomeClass *Item" and a list of "SomeClass *" variables)

    Read the article

  • Passing HttpFileCollectionBase to the Business Layer - Bad?

    - by Terry_Brown
    hopefully there's an easy solution to this one. I have my MVC2 project which allows uploads of files on certain forms. I'm trying to keep my controllers lean, and handle the processing within the business layer of this sort of thing. That said, HttpFileCollectionBase is obviously in the System.Web assembly. Ideally I want to call to something like: UserService.SaveEvidenceFiles(MyUser user, HttpFileCollectionBase files); or something similar and have my business layer handle the logic of how and where these things are saved. But, it feels a little icky to have my models layer with a reference to System.Web in terms of separation of concerns etc. So, we have (that I'm aware of) a few options: the web project handling this, and my controllers getting fatter mapping the HttpFileCollectionBase to something my business layer likes passing the collection through, and accepting that I reference System.Web from my business project Would love some feedback here on best practice approaches to this sort of thing - even if not specifically within the context of the above.

    Read the article

  • Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

    - by John Gietzen
    Here is the scenario: I have an object called a Transaction that needs to make sure that only one entity has permission to edit it at any given time. In order to facilitate a long-lived lock, I have the class generating a token object that can be used to make the edits. You would use it like this: var transaction = new Transaction(); using (var tlock = transaction.Lock()) { transaction.Update(data, tlock); } Now, I want the TransactionLock class to implement IDisposable so that its usage can be clear. But, I don't have any unmanaged resources to dispose. however, the TransctionLock object itself is a sort of "unmanaged resource" in the sense that the CLR doesn't know how to properly finalize it. All of this would be fine and dandy, I would just use IDisposable and be done with it. However, my issue comes when I try to do this in the finalizer: ~TransactionLock() { this.Dispose(false); } I want the finalizer to release the transaction from the lock, if possible. How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized? Is there a better pattern I should be using? The Transaction class looks something like this: public sealed class Transaction { private readonly object lockMutex = new object(); private TransactionLock currentLock; public TransactionLock Lock() { lock (this.lockMutex) { if (this.currentLock != null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); this.currentLock = new TransactionLock(this); return this.currentLock; } } public void Update(object data, TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); // ... } } internal void ValidateLock(TransactionLock tlock) { if (this.currentLock == null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); if (this.currentLock != tlock) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); } internal void Unlock(TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); this.currentLock = null; } } }

    Read the article

  • Using switch and enumerations as substitute for named methods

    - by MatthewMartin
    This pattern pops up a lot. It looks like a very verbose way to move what would otherwise be separate named methods into a single method and then distinguished by a parameter. Is there any good reason to have this pattern over just having two methods Method1() and Method2() ? The real kicker is that this pattern tends to be invoked only with constants at runtime-- i.e. the arguments are all known before compiling is done. public enum Commands { Method1, Method2 } public void ClientCode() { //Always invoked with constants! Never user input. RunCommands(Commands.Method1); RunCommands(Commands.Method2); } public void RunCommands(Commands currentCommand) { switch (currentCommand) { case Commands.Method1: // Stuff happens break; case Commands.Method2: // Other stuff happens break; default: throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("currentCommand"); } }

    Read the article

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Best practice -- Content Tracking Remote Data (cURL, file_get_contents, cron, et. al)?

    - by user322787
    I am attempting to build a script that will log data that changes every 1 second. The initial thought was "Just run a php file that does a cURL every second from cron" -- but I have a very strong feeling that this isn't the right way to go about it. Here are my specifications: There are currently 10 sites I need to gather data from and log to a database -- this number will invariably increase over time, so the solution needs to be scalable. Each site has data that it spits out to a URL every second, but only keeps 10 lines on the page, and they can sometimes spit out up to 10 lines each time, so I need to pick up that data every second to ensure I get all the data. As I will also be writing this data to my own DB, there's going to be I/O every second of every day for a considerably long time. Barring magic, what is the most efficient way to achieve this? it might help to know that the data that I am getting every second is very small, under 500bytes.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server error handling: exceptions and the database-client contract

    - by gbn
    We’re a team of SQL Servers database developers. Our clients are a mixed bag of C#/ASP.NET, C# and Java web services, Java/Unix services and some Excel. Our client developers only use stored procedures that we provide and we expect that (where sensible, of course) they treat them like web service methods. Some our client developers don’t like SQL exceptions. They understand them in their languages but they don’t appreciate that the SQL is limited in how we can communicate issues. I don’t just mean SQL errors, such as trying to insert “bob” into a int column. I also mean exceptions such as telling them that a reference value is wrong, or that data has already changed, or they can’t do this because his aggregate is not zero. They’d don’t really have any concrete alternatives: they’ve mentioned that we should output parameters, but we assume an exception means “processing stopped/rolled back. How do folks here handle the database-client contract? Either generally or where there is separation between the DB and client code monkeys. Edits: we use SQL Server 2005 TRY/CATCH exclusively we log all errors after the rollback to an exception table already we're concerned that some of our clients won't check output paramaters and assume everything is OK. We need errors flagged up for support to look at. everything is an exception... the clients are expected to do some message parsing to separate information vs errors. To separate our exceptions from DB engine and calling errors, they should use the error number (ours are all 50,000 of course)

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern for this?

    - by Timmy
    i have something that requires a matrix of values, similar to pokemon: i have a class object for each of the types, is there a pattern or a good way to implement this, as a middle layer or in the classes?

    Read the article

  • Send through Email, or store in database?

    - by user156814
    I have wondered when it is best to send an email, and when its best to store data in a database/log file. Everytime a user wants to contact me or inform me of soething, I suppose an email is best.. but is an email always preferred over other ways, and in what cases. Possible reasons for being contacted I can think of are questions, suggestions, feedback, reporting abuse, advertising, etc... I assume email, "why add unnecessary things to the DB?", but I figure data in DB would be a lot easier to manage. Whats the better/best way to be informed of things like this.. What is the best way for you (webmaster) to be informed of something by users? through email, or some other way

    Read the article

  • Win7: Right place to install a program that may be 'shared' with other computers

    - by robsoft
    We have an app that currently installs itself into 'program files\our app', and it puts the internal data files into the common Application Data folder. This means the program is available to any user on that particular PC. Now we want to make a multi-user version of this program, multiple PCs accessing the program at the same time across the network. In the bad old days, under XP, we'd just have the user who installed the app 'share' the app directory and off we'd go. In principle, is this still the 'right' way to do it under Vista/Windows 7? We'd like to do this 'properly' and be as compliant as possible! Is there a recommended 'Microsoft' approach for doing this, or is it largely down to whatever we can get away with and subsequently support (hah!). I've tried researching this on the MS websites but not found anything too helpful at all - it'd be really useful to have a 'if you're trying to install this kind of thing, put it here' type guide for developers!

    Read the article

  • What should go in each MVVM triad?

    - by Harry
    OK, let's say I am creating a program that will list users contacts in a ListBox on the left side of the screen. When a user clicks on the contact, a bunch of messages or whatever appears in the main part of the window. Now my question is: how should the MVVM triads look? I have two models: Contact, and Message. The Contact model contains a list of Message models. Each ViewModel object will contain a single corresponding Model, right? And what about the Views? I have a "MainView" that is the main window, that will have things like the menu, toolbar etc. Do I put the ListBox in the MainView? My confusion is with what to put where; for example, what should the ContactView contain? Just a single instance of a contact? So the DataTemplate, ControlTemplate, context menus, styles etc for that single contact, and then just have a ListBox of them in the MainView...? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to checking against the system time

    - by vikp
    Hi, I have an application which license should expire after some period of time. I can check the time in the applicatino against the system time, but system time can be changed by the administrator, therefore it's not a good idea to check against the system time in my opinion. What alternatives do I have? Thank you

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Module Pattern - What about using "return this"?

    - by Rob
    After doing some reading about the Module Pattern, I've seen a few ways of returning the properties which you want to be public. One of the most common ways is to declare your public properties and methods right inside of the "return" statement, apart from your private properties and methods. A similar way (the "Revealing" pattern) is to provide simply references to the properties and methods which you want to be public. Lastly, a third technique I saw was to create a new object inside your module function, to which you assign your new properties before returning said object. This was an interesting idea, but requires the creation of a new object. So I was thinking, why not just use "this.propertyName" to assign your public properties and methods, and finally use "return this" at the end? This way seems much simpler to me, as you can create private properties and methods with the usual "var" or "function" syntax, or use the "this.propertyName" syntax to declare your public methods. Here's the method I'm suggesting: (function() { var privateMethod = function () { alert('This is a private method.'); } this.publicMethod = function () { alert('This is a public method.'); } return this; })(); Are there any pros/cons to using the method above? What about the others?

    Read the article

  • What lessons can you learn from software maintanence?

    - by Vasil Remeniuk
    Hello everyone, In the perfect world, all the software developers would work with the cutting edge technologies, creating systems from the scratch. In the real life, almost all of us have to maintain software from time to time (unlucky ones do it on a regular basis). Personally I first 2 years of my career was fixing bugs in the company that no longer exists (it has been taken up by Oracle). And probably the biggest lesson I've learned that time - despite of the pressure, always try to get as much information about the domain as possible (even if it's irrelevant to fixing a specific bug or adding a feature) - abstract domain knowledge doesn't lose value as fast as knowledge about trendy frameworks or methodologies. What lessons have you learned from maintenance?

    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 | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >