Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns practices'.

Page 47/348 | < Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >

• DDD: Service or Repository

  - by tikhop

  I am developing an app in DDD manner. And I have a little problem with it. I have a Fare (airline fare) and FareRepository objects. And at some point I should load additional fare information and set this information to existing Fare. I guess that I need to create an Application Service (FareAdditionalInformationService) that will deal with obtaining data from the server and than update existing Fare. However, some people said me that it is necessary to use FareRepository for this problem. I don't know wich place is better for my problem Service or Repository.

  Read the article

• How you return to a code when you don't remember what you were doing?

  - by speeder

  Well, I have some problems with procrastination and whatnot, but those get infinitely worse, when I cannot remember what I should be doing. I mean, I know my project, I wrote 100% of the code so far, and I knew more or less what I was doing, but I don't remember exactly what, I don't remember what file I was editing and why. How I get back on track? (because right now my technique of opening the source code and staring at it is not working)

  Read the article

• What are the consequences of immutable classes with references to mutable classes?

  - by glenviewjeff

  I've recently begun adopting the best practice of designing my classes to be immutable per Effective Java [Bloch2008]. I have a series of interrelated questions about degrees of mutability and their consequences. I have run into situations where a (Java) class I implemented is only "internally immutable" because it uses references to other mutable classes. In this case, the class under development appears from the external environment to have state. Do any of the benefits (see below) of immutable classes hold true even by only "internally immutable" classes? Is there an accepted term for the aforementioned "internal mutability"? Wikipedia's immutable object page uses the unsourced term "deep immutability" to describe an object whose references are also immutable. Is the distinction between mutability and side-effect-ness/state important? Josh Bloch lists the following benefits of immutable classes: are simple to construct, test, and use are automatically thread-safe and have no synchronization issues do not need a copy constructor do not need an implementation of clone allow hashCode to use lazy initialization, and to cache its return value do not need to be copied defensively when used as a field make good Map keys and Set elements (these objects must not change state while in the collection) have their class invariant established once upon construction, and it never needs to be checked again always have "failure atomicity" (a term used by Joshua Bloch) : if an immutable object throws an exception, it's never left in an undesirable or indeterminate state

  Read the article

• Style bits vs. Separate bool's

  - by peterchen

  My main platform (WinAPI) still heavily uses bits for control styles etc. (example). When introducing custom controls, I'm permanently wondering whether to follow that style or rather use individual bool's. Let's pit them against each other: enum EMyCtrlStyles { mcsUseFileIcon = 1, mcsTruncateFileName = 2, mcsUseShellContextMenu = 4, }; void SetStyle(DWORD mcsStyle); void ModifyStyle(DWORD mcsRemove, DWORD mcsAdd); DWORD GetStyle() const; ... ctrl.SetStyle(mcsUseFileIcon | mcsUseShellContextMenu); vs. CMyCtrl & SetUseFileIcon(bool enable = true); bool GetUseFileIcon() const; CMyCtrl & SetTruncteFileName(bool enable = true); bool GetTruncteFileName() const; CMyCtrl & SetUseShellContextMenu(bool enable = true); bool GetUseShellContextMenu() const; ctrl.SetUseFileIcon().SetUseShellContextMenu(); As I see it, Pro Style Bits Consistent with platform less library code (without gaining complexity), less places to modify for adding a new style less caller code (without losing notable readability) easier to use in some scenarios (e.g. remembering / transferring settings) Binary API remains stable if new style bits are introduced Now, the first and the last are minor in most cases. Pro Individual booleans Intellisense and refactoring tools reduce the "less typing" effort Single Purpose Entities more literate code (as in "flows more like a sentence") No change of paradim for non-bool properties These sound more modern, but also "soft" advantages. I must admit the "platform consistency" is much more enticing than I could justify, the less code without losing much quality is a nice bonus. 1. What do you prefer? Subjectively, for writing the library, or for writing client code? 2. Any (semi-) objective statements, studies, etc.?

  Read the article

• Is the 'C' in MVC really necessary?

  - by Anne Nonimus

  I understand the role of the model and view in the Model-View-Controller pattern, but I have a hard time understanding why a controller is necessary. Let's assume we're creating a chess program using an MVC approach; the game state should be the model, and the GUI should be the view. What exactly is the controller in this case? Is it just a separate class that has all the functions that will be called when you, say, click on a tile? Why not just perform all the logic on the model in the view itself?

  Read the article

• Implementing game rules in a tactical battle board game

  - by Setzer22

  I'm trying to create a game similar to what one would find in a typical D&D board game combat. For mor examples you could think of games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem or Disgaea. I should say that I'm using design by component so far, but I can't find a nice way to fit components into the part I want to ask. I'm struggling right now with the "game rules" logic. That is, the code that displays the menu, allows the player to select units, and command them, then tells the unit game objects what to do given the player input. The best way I could thing of handling this was using a big state machine, so everything that could be done in a "turn" is handled by this state machine, and the update code of this state machine does different things depending on the state. This approach, though, leads to a large amount of code (anything not model-related) to go into a big class. Of course I can subdivide this big class into more classes, but it doesn't feel modular and upgradable enough. I'd like to know of better systems to handle this in order to be able to upgrade the game with new rules without having a monstruous if/else chain (or switch / case, for that matter). So, any ideas? I'd also like to ask that if you recommend me a specific design pattern to also provide some kind of example or further explanation and not stick to "Yeah you should use MVC and it'll work".

  Read the article

• Does heavy library and snippet codes usage make you a bad programmer?

  - by Henrik P.

  Overall I'm in programming for about 8 years now and it seems to me that I'm relying more and more on open source libraries and snippets (damn you GitHub!) to "get the job done". I know that in time I could write me own implementation but I like to focus on the overall design. Is this normal (non cooperate environment)? Does it make you a bad programmer if "programming" is nothing more than cluing different libraries together. Feels like it. I know about "don't reinvent the wheel" but what happens when you don't invent a single wheel anymore. What's your take on this?

  Read the article

• What is your unique programming problem-solving style? [closed]

  - by gcc

  Everyone has their own styles and technique for approaching and solving real world problems. These distinguish us from other people or other programmers. (Actually, I think it make us more desirable as programmers and improves computer science) To improve, we read a lot of books; for example, programming style, how to solve problems, how to approach problems, software and algorithms, et al. Can I learn your technique? In other words, if someone gives you a problem, at first step, what are you doing to solve it? I want learn the style in which you approach, analyze, and solve a problem. EDIT: every programmer is a unique instance; each of us approach problems and converge on solutions in our own... idiomatic manner. This manner is sometimes a quirk of training, a bias of tools, but often it is an insightful nugget, a little golden hammer that cracks nuts just slightly faster then others. When answering, give your general approaches but also take a moment to identify how you look at things in ways that your peers do not. Let's call this your Unique Solving Perspective, or USP.

  Read the article

• Is this kind of design - a class for Operations On Object - correct?

  - by Mithir

  In our system we have many complex operations which involve many validations and DB activities. One of the main Business functionality could have been designed better. In short, there were no separation of layers, and the code would only work from the scenario in which it was first designed at, and now there were more scenarios (like requests from an API or from other devices) So I had to redesign. I found myself moving all the DB code to objects which acts like Business to DB objects, and I've put all the business logic in an Operator kind of a class, which I've implemented like this: First, I created an object which will hold all the information needed for the operation let's call it InformationObject. Then I created an OperatorObject which will take the InformationObject as a parameter and act on it. The OperatorObject should activate different objects and validate or check for existence or any scenario in which the business logic is compromised and then make the operation according to the information on the InformationObject. So my question is - Is this kind of implementation correct? PS, this Operator only works on a single Business-wise Operation.

  Read the article

• Serial plans: Threshold / Parallel_degree_limit = 1

  - by jean-pierre.dijcks

  As a very short follow up on the previous post. So here is some more on getting a serial plan and why that happens Another reason - compared to the auto DOP is not on as we looked at in the earlier post - and often more prevalent to get a serial plan is if the plan simply does not take long enough to consider a parallel path. The resulting plan and note looks like this (note that this is a serial plan!): explain plan for select count(1) from sales; SELECT PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT FROM TABLE(DBMS_XPLAN.DISPLAY()); PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plan hash value: 672559287 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id  | Operation            | Name  | Rows  | Cost (%CPU)| Time     | Pstart| Pstop | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLAN_TABLE_OUTPUT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT     |       |     1 |     5   (0)| 00:00:01 |       |     | |   1 |  SORT AGGREGATE      |       |     1 |            |          |       |     | |   2 |   PARTITION RANGE ALL|       |   960 |     5   (0)| 00:00:01 |     1 |  16 | |   3 |    TABLE ACCESS FULL | SALES |   960 |     5   (0)| 00:00:01 |     1 |  16 | Note -----    - automatic DOP: Computed Degree of Parallelism is 1 because of parallel threshold 14 rows selected. The parallel threshold is referring to parallel_min_time_threshold and since I did not change the default (10s) the plan is not being considered for a parallel degree computation and is therefore staying with the serial execution. Now we go into the land of crazy: Assume I do want this DOP=1 to happen, I could set the parameter in the init.ora, but to highlight it in this case I changed it on the session: alter session set parallel_degree_limit = 1; The result I get is: ERROR: ORA-02097: parameter cannot be modified because specified value is invalid ORA-00096: invalid value 1 for parameter parallel_degree_limit, must be from among CPU IO AUTO INTEGER>=2 Which of course makes perfect sense...

  Read the article

• Testing loses its effectiveness if all programmers don't use them

  - by Jeff O

  Let's assume you are convinced that the extra time spent unit testing has merit and improves production. Does that still hold up when everyone working on the same code doesn't use them? This question makes me wonder if fixing tests that everyone doesn't use is a waste of time. If you correct a test so the new code will pass, you're assuming the new code is correct. The person updating the test better have a firm understanding of the reasoning behind the code change and decide if the test or the new code needs to be fixed. This much inconsistency in a team when it comes to testing is probably an indication of other problems as well. There is a certain amount of risk involved that someone else on the team will alter code that is covered by testing. Is this the point where testing becomes counter-productive?

  Read the article

• How to avoid big and clumpsy UITableViewController on iOS?

  - by Johan Karlsson

  I have a problem when implementing the MVC-pattern on iOS. I have searched the Internet but seems not to find any nice solution to this problem. Many UITableViewController implementations seems to be rather big. Most example I have seen lets the UITableViewController implement UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. These implementations are a big reason why UITableViewControlleris getting big. One solution would be to create separate classes that implements UITableViewDelegate and UITableViewDataSource. Of course these classes would have to have a reference to the UITableViewController. Are there any drawbacks using this solution? In general I think you should delegate the functionality to other "Helper" classes or similar, using the delegate pattern. Are there any well established ways of solving this problem? I do not want the model to contain to much functionality, nor the view. A believe that the logic should really be in the controller class, since this is one of the cornerstones of the MVC-pattern. But the big question is; How should you divide the controller of a MVC-implementation into smaller manageable pieces? (Applies to MVC in iOS in this case) There might be a general pattern for solving this, although I am specifically looking for a solution for iOS. Please give an example of a good pattern for solving this issue. Also an argument why this solution is awesome.

  Read the article

• AdventureWorks 2014 Sample Databases Are Now Available

  - by aspiringgeek

    Where in the World is AdventureWorks? Recently, SQL Community feedback from twitter prompted me to look in vain for SQL Server 2014 versions of the AdventureWorks sample databases we’ve all grown to know & love. I searched Codeplex, then used the bing & even the google in an effort to locate them, yet all I could find were samples on different sites highlighting specific technologies, an incomplete collection inconsistent with the experience we users had learned to expect.  I began pinging internally & learned that an update to AdventureWorks wasn’t even on the road map.  Fortunately, SQL Marketing manager Luis Daniel Soto Maldonado (t) lent a sympathetic ear & got the update ball rolling; his direct report Darmodi Komo recently announced the release of the shiny new sample databases for OLTP, DW, Tabular, and Multidimensional models to supplement the extant In-Memory OLTP sample DB.  What Success Looks Like In my correspondence with the team, here’s how I defined success: 1. Sample AdventureWorks DBs hosted on Codeplex showcasing SQL Server 2014’s latest-&-greatest features, including:  In-Memory OLTP (aka Hekaton) Clustered Columnstore Online Operations Resource Governor IO 2. Where it makes sense to do so, consolidate the DBs (e.g., showcasing Columnstore likely involves a separate DW DB) 3. Documentation to support experimenting with these features As Microsoft Senior SDE Bonnie Feinberg (b) stated, “I think it would be great to see an AdventureWorks for SQL 2014.  It would be super helpful for third-party book authors and trainers.  It also provides a common way to share examples in blog posts and forum discussions, for example.”  Exactly.  We’ve established a rich & robust tradition of sample databases on Codeplex.  This is what our community & our customers expect.  The prompt response achieves what we all aim to do, i.e., manifests the Service Design Engineering mantra of “delighting the customer”.  Kudos to Luis’s team in SQL Server Marketing & Kevin Liu’s team in SQL Server Engineering for doing so. Download AdventureWorks 2014 Download your copies of SQL Server 2014 AdventureWorks sample databases here.

  Read the article

• Using IComparable<T> Interface

  - by Pawan_Mishra

  Level : Beginner to Intermediate C# language has constantly evolved over a constant period of time.Each new version introduced new features which changed the way we programmed and solved the problems. Whether it was introduction of generics in C# 2.0 , LINQ in C# 3.0 or concept of dynamic programming in C# 4.0 , each of them had or will have greater impact on our programming style.As a developer we don’t have much option but to evolve and redefine our self in this constantly changing environment...(read more)

  Read the article

• Advantages of Singleton Class over Static Class?

  Point 1)Singleton We can get the object of singleton and then pass to other methods.Static Class We can not pass static class to other methods as we pass objectsPoint 2) Singleton In future, it is easy to change the logic of of creating objects to some pooling mechanism. Static Class Very difficult to implement some pooling logic in case of static class. We would need to make that class as non-static and then make all the methods non-static methods, So entire your code needs to be changed.Point3:) Singleton Can Singletone class be inherited to subclass? Singleton class does not say any restriction of Inheritence. So we should be able to do this as long as subclass is also inheritence.There's nothing fundamentally wrong with subclassing a class that is intended to be a singleton. There are many reasons you might want to do it. and there are many ways to accomplish it. It depends on language you use.Static Class We can not inherit Static class to another Static class in C#. Think about it this way: you access static members via type name, like this: MyStaticType.MyStaticMember(); Were you to inherit from that class, you would have to access it via the new type name: MyNewType.MyStaticMember(); Thus, the new item bears no relationships to the original when used in code. There would be no way to take advantage of any inheritance relationship for things like polymorphism. span.fullpost {display:none;}

  Read the article

• The use of Test-Driven Development in Non-Greenfield Projects?

  - by JHarley1

  So here is a question for you, having read some great answers to questions such as "Test-Driven Development - Convince Me". So my question is: "Can Test-Driven Development be used effectively on non-Greenfield projects?" To specify: I would really like to know if people have had experience in using TDD in projects where there was already non-TDD elements present? And the problems that they then faced.

  Read the article

• How to write good code with new stuff?

  - by Reza M.

  I always try to write easily readable code that is well structured. I face a particular problem when I am messing around with something new. I keep changing the code, structure and so many other things. In the end, I look at the code and am annoyed at how complicated it became when I was trying to do something so simple. Once I've completed something, I refactor it heavily so that it's cleaner. This occurs after completion most of the time and it is annoying because the bigger the code the more annoying it is the rewrite it. I am curious to know how people deal with such agony, especially on big projects shared between many people ?

  Read the article

• Builder Pattern: When to fail?

  - by skiwi

  When implementing the Builder Pattern, I often find myself confused with when to let building fail and I even manage to take different stands on the matter every few days. First some explanation: With failing early I mean that building an object should fail as soon as an invalid parameter is passed in. So inside the SomeObjectBuilder. With failing late I mean that building an object only can fail on the build() call that implicitely calls a constructor of the object to be built. Then some arguments: In favor of failing late: A builder class should be no more than a class that simply holds values. Moreover, it leads to less code duplication. In favor of failing early: A general approach in software programming is that you want to detect issues as early as possible and therefore the most logical place to check would be in the builder class' constructor, 'setters' and ultimately in the build method. What is the general concensus about this?

  Read the article

• Is monkeypatching considered good programming practice?

  - by vartec

  I've been under impression, that monkeypatching is more in quick and dirty hack category, rather than standard, good programming practice. While I'd used from time to time to fix minor issues with 3rd party libs, I considered it temporary fix and I'd submit proper patch to the 3rd party project. However, I've seen this technique used as "the normal way" in mainstream projects, for example in Gevent's gevent.monkey module. Has monkeypatching became mainstream, normal, acceptable programming practice? See also: "Monkeypatching For Humans" by Jeff Atwood

  Read the article

• Buzzword for "performance-aware" software development

  - by errantlinguist

  There seems to be an overabundance of buzzwords for software development styles and methodologies: Agile development, extreme programming, test-driven development, etc... well, is there any sort of buzzword for "performance-aware" development? By "performance awareness", I don't necessarily mean low-latency or low-level programming, although the former would logically fall under the blanket term I'm looking for. I mean development in which resources are recognised to be finite and so there is a general emphasis on low computational complexity, good resource management, etc. If I was to be snarky, I would say "good programming", but that doesn't seem to get the message across so well...

  Read the article

• Why do programmers seem to be such bad spellers?

  - by Joel Etherton

  Programming languages are very precise tools based on explicit grammars. They're very picky, and when being used they require an exacting amount of detail. C#, for instance, is case sensitive so even getting the case of an argument wrong will cause an error. Questions asked all over the StackExchange are replete with misspellings, grammatical errors, and other problems that seem to indicate a lack of attention to detail when it comes to the language itself. Now, I understand there are a lot of programmers out there whose native language is not English, and I am not directing this question (rant one might say) at them. I'm referring to the individuals who are clearly from an English speaking background who refuse to pay attention to these simple details. I am not perfect by any means, but I try to use the language correctly so that my meaning will be understood correctly. I find programmers misspelling variable names, classes, and all manner of words in any kind of technical documentation they might write. I have had to withstand code where I am repeatedly referring to the subit[sic] button or HttpWebResponse reponse. The general complaint about bad spelling is one thing, and it will always be there. I accept that. But my question/comment is about the proclivity of bad spelling within the programming community. I would think that people who deal with such exacting tools to be more naturally predisposed towards proper spelling. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case.

  Read the article

• Looking for some OO design advice

  - by Andrew Stephens

  I'm developing an app that will be used to open and close valves in an industrial environment, and was thinking of something simple like this:- public static void ValveController { public static void OpenValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to open the valve } public static void CloseValve(string valveName) { // Implementation to close the valve } } (The implementation would write a few bytes of data to the serial port to control the valve - an "address" derived from the valve name, and either a "1" or "0" to open or close the valve). Another dev asked whether we should instead create a separate class for each physical valve, of which there are dozens. I agree it would be nicer to write code like PlasmaValve.Open() rather than ValveController.OpenValve("plasma"), but is this overkill? Also, I was wondering how best to tackle the design with a couple of hypothetical future requirements in mind:- We are asked to support a new type of valve requiring different values to open and close it (not 0 and 1). We are asked to support a valve that can be set to any position from 0-100, rather than simply "open" or "closed". Normally I would use inheritance for this kind of thing, but I've recently started to get my head around "composition over inheritance" and wonder if there is a slicker solution to be had using composition?

  Read the article

• .NET - refactoring code

  - by w0051977

  I have inherited and now further develop a large application consisting of an ASP.NET application, VB6 and VB.NET application. The software was poorly written. I am trying to refactor the code as I go along. The changes I am making are not live (they are contained in a folder on my development machine). This is proving to be time consuming and I am doing this along side other work which is the prioritiy. My question is: is this a practical approach or is there a better methodology for refactoring code? I don't have any experience with version control software or source control software and I am wandering if this is what I am missing. I am a sole developer.

  Read the article

• Am I missing a pattern?

  - by Ryan Pedersen

  I have a class that is a singleton and off of the singleton are properties that hold the instances of all the performance counters in my application. public interface IPerformanceCounters { IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallRate { get; } IPerformanceCounter AccountServiceCallDuration { get; } Above is an incomplete snippet of the interface for the class "PerformanceCounters" that is the singleton. I really don't like the plural part of the name and thought about changing it to "PerformanceCounterCollection" but stopped because it really isn't a collection. I also thought about "PerformanceCounterFactory" but it is really a factory either. After failing with these two names and a couple more that aren't worth mentioning I thought that I might be missing a pattern. Is there a name that make sense or a change that I could make towards a standardized pattern that would help me put some polish on this object and get rid of the plural name? I understand that I might be splitting hairs here but that is why I thought that the "Programmers" exchange was the place for this kind of thing. If it is not... I am sorry and I will not make that mistake again. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Finding complexity of a program as a service [on hold]

  - by Seshu

  I would like to find the complexity of a specific code chunk written in Java. Is there a place/web site/service where I can find out the complexity of any arbitrary program. This program might include loops/recursion. Using theory we can compute complexity ourselves. But, just curious in finding if any service is out there to find such complexity. We have several code quality related tools does any of such tools will also find complexity of given code? Could any one point me or direct me to such a utility/site/service?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54  | Next Page >