Search Results

Search found 41998 results on 1680 pages for 'oracle best practices'.

Page 432/1680 | < Previous Page | 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439  | Next Page >

• Reference table values in a war against magic numbers

  - by Alex N.

  This question bugged me for years now and can't seem to find good solution still. I working in PHP and Java but it sounds like this maybe language-agnostic :) Say we have a standard status reference table that holds status ids for some kind of entity. Further let's assume the table will have just 5 values, and will remain like this for a long time, maybe edited occasionally with addition of a new status. When you fetch a row and need to see what status it is you have 2 options(as I see it at least) - put it straight ID values(magic numbers that is) or use a named constant. Latter seem much cleaner, the question though is where those named constants should leave? In a model class? In a class that uses this particular constant? Somewhere else?

  Read the article

• How to reference a class that implements certain interface?

  - by vikp

  Hi, I have an interface for logging the exceptions, i.e. IExceptionLogger. This interface has 3 implementations: DBExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger. I have an application that will make a use of DBExceptionLogger. The application references only IExceptionLogger. How do I create an instance of DBExceptionLogger within the application. I can't reference the DBExceptionLogger directly since it will break the purpose of having IExceptionLogger interface. Thanks

  Read the article

• Lock thread using somthing other than a object

  - by Scott Chamberlain

  when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

  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

• 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

• 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

• It is good programming practice to always check for null pointers before using an object in C++?

  - by jm1234567890

  This seems like a lot of work; to check for null each time an object is used. I have been advised that it is a good idea to check for null pointers so you don't have to spend time looking for where segmentation faults occur. Just wondering what the community here thinks?

  Read the article

• Should I use block identifiers ("end;") in my code?

  - by JosephStyons

  Code Complete says it is good practice to always use block identifiers, both for clarity and as a defensive measure. Since reading that book, I've been doing that religiously. Sometimes it seems excessive though, as in the case below. Is Steve McConnell right to insist on always using block identifiers? Which of these would you use? //naughty and brief with myGrid do for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do if RowChanged(currRow) then if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then InsertNewRecord(currRow) else UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); //well behaved and verbose with myGrid do begin for currRow := FixedRows to RowCount - 1 do begin if RowChanged(currRow) then begin if not(RecordExists(currRow)) then begin InsertNewRecord(currRow); end //if it didn't exist, so insert it else begin UpdateExistingRecord(currRow); end; //else it existed, so update it end; //if any change end; //for each row in the grid end; //with myGrid

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• #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

• Java: Inputting text from a file using split

  - by 00PS

  I am inputting an adjacency list for a graph. There are three columns of data (vertex, destination, edge) separated by a single space. Here is my implementation so far: FileStream in = new FileStream("input1.txt"); Scanner s = new Scanner(in); String buffer; String [] line = null; while (s.hasNext()) { buffer = s.nextLine(); line = buffer.split("\\s+"); g.add(line[0]); System.out.println("Added vertex " + line[0] + "."); g.addEdge(line[0], line[1], Integer.parseInt(line[2])); System.out.println("Added edge from " + line[0] + " to " + line[1] + " with a weight of " + Integer.parseInt(line[2]) + "."); } System.out.println("Size of graph = " + g.size()); Here is the output: Added vertex a. Added edge from a to b with a weight of 9. Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at structure5.GraphListDirected.addEdge(GraphListDirected.java:93) at Driver.main(Driver.java:28) I was under the impression that line = buffer.split("\\s+"); would return a 2 dimensional array of Strings to the variable line. It seemed to work the first time but not the second. Any thoughts? I would also like some feedback on my implementation of this problem. Is there a better way? Anything to help out a novice! :)

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Rapid Opening and Closing System.IO.StreamWriter in C#

  - by ccomet

  Suppose you have a file that you are programmatically logging information into with regards to a process. Kinda like your typical debug Console.WriteLine, but due to the nature of the code you're testing, you don't have a console to write onto so you have to write it somewhere like a file. My current program uses System.IO.StreamWriter for this task. My question is about the approach to using the StreamWriter. Is it better to open just one StreamWriter instance, do all of the writes, and close it when the entire process is done? Or is it a better idea to open a new StreamWriter instance to write a line into the file, then immediately close it, and do this for every time something needs to be written in? In the latter approach, this would probably be facilitated by a method that would do just that for a given message, rather than bloating the main process code with excessive amounts of lines. But having a method to aid in that implementation doesn't necessarily make it the better choice. Are there significant advantages to picking one approach or the other? Or are they functionally equivalent, leaving the choice on the shoulders of the programmer?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439  | Next Page >