Search Results

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

Page 54/348 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

• 10gR2 Transportable Tablespaces Certified for EBS 11i

  - by Steven Chan

  Database migration across platforms of different "endian" (byte ordering) formats using the Cross Platform Transportable Tablespaces (XTTS) process is now certified for Oracle E-Business Suite Release 11i (11.5.10.2) with Oracle Database 10g Release 2.  This process is sometimes also referred to as transportable tablespaces (TTS).What is the Cross-Platform Transportable Tablespace Feature?The Cross-Platform Transportable Tablespace feature allows users to move a user tablespace across Oracle databases. It's an efficient way to move bulk data between databases. If the source platform and the target platform are of different endianness, then an additional conversion step must be done on either the source or target platform to convert the tablespace being transported to the target format. If they are of the same endianness, then no conversion is necessary and tablespaces can be transported as if they were on the same platform.Moving data using transportable tablespaces can be much faster than performing either an export/import or unload/load of the same data. This is because transporting a tablespace only requires the copying of datafiles from source to the destination and then integrating the tablespace structural information. You can also use transportable tablespaces to move both table and index data, thereby avoiding the index rebuilds you would have to perform when importing or loading table data.

  Read the article

• How do I know when should I package my classes in Ruby?

  - by Omega

  In Ruby, I'm creating a small game development framework. Just some personal project - a very small group of friends helping. Now I am in need of handling geometric concepts. Rectangles, Circles, Polygons, Vectors, Lines, etc. So I made a class for each of these. I'm stuck deciding whether I should package such classes in a module, such as Geometry. So I'd access them like Geometry::Rectangle, or just Rectangle if I include the module. Now then, my question isn't about this specific scenario. I'd like to know, when is it suitable to package similar classes into one module in Ruby? What factors should I consider? Amount of classes? Usage frequency? Complexity?

  Read the article

• HTML5 article tag application for the iPad/iPhone

  - by dspencer

  I've used article tags on websites. My understanding and practice is to use the article tag for publication content. I always use HTML/HTML5 tags as their intended purposes and not at will. Recently, I've seen an HTML template that uses the article tag for the non-publication page content such as the content of an About Us page or any other generic page. I asked the why it was used this way and the (vague) explanation was that it had to do with the way the iPad read the tag. Is this true?

  Read the article

• Should I modify an entity with many parameters or with the entity itself?

  - by Saeed Neamati

  We have a SOA-based system. The service methods are like: UpdateEntity(Entity entity) For small entities, it's all fine. However, when entities get bigger and bigger, to update one property we should follow this pattern in UI: Get parameters from UI (user) Create an instance of the Entity, using those parameters Get the entity from service Write code to fill the unchanged properties Give the result entity to the service Another option that I've experienced in previous experiences is to create semantic update methods for each update scenario. In other words instead of having one global all-encompasing update method, we had many ad-hoc parametric methods. For example, for the User entity, instead of having UpdateUser (User user) method, we had these methods: ChangeUserPassword(int userId, string newPassword) AddEmailToUserAccount(int userId, string email) ChangeProfilePicture(int userId, Image image) ... Now, I don't know which method is truly better, and for each approach, we encounter problems. I mean, I'm going to design the infrastructure for a new system, and I don't have enough reasons to pick any of these approaches. I couldn't find good resources on the Internet, because of the lack of keywords I could provide. What approach is better? What pitfalls each has? What benefits can we get from each one?

  Read the article

• Email links open in a new window [closed]

  - by Dan

  I'm asking this as an opinion question. How does everyone treat email links opening in a new window if their default email client is web based? This way? <a href="mailto:[email protected]">email me</a>. It will open fine for app based email clients but open in the same window for web based clients. This way? <a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">email me</a>. It will open in a new tab for web based email clients but open a blank tab. I cant really seem to find the best of both worlds. What does everyone else do?

  Read the article

• whats the name of this pattern?

  - by Wes

  I see this a lot in frameworks. You have a master class which other classes register with. The master class then decides which of the registered classes to delegate the request to. An example based passed in class may be something this. public interface Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle); public void handle(Object objectToHandle); } public class EvenNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isEven(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } public class OddNumberProcessor extends Processor { public boolean canHandle(Object objectToHandle) { if (!isNumeric(objectToHandle)){ return false } return isOdd(objectToHandle); } public void handle(objectToHandle) { //Optionally call canHandleAgain to ensure the calling class is fufilling its contract doSomething(); } } //Can optionally implement processor interface public class processorDelegator { private List processors; public void addProcessor(Processor processor) { processors.add(processor); } public void process(Object objectToProcess) { //Lookup relevant processor either by keeping a list of what they can process //Or query each one to see if it can process the object. chosenProcessor=chooseProcessor(objectToProcess); chosenProcessor.handle(objectToProcess); } } Note there are a few variations I see on this. In one variation the sub classes provide a list of things they can process which the ProcessorDelegator understands. The other variation which is listed above in fake code is where each is queried in turn. This is similar to chain of command but I don't think its the same as chain of command means that the processor needs to pass to other processors. The other variation is where the ProcessorDelegator itself implements the interface which means you can get trees of ProcessorDelegators which specialise further. In the above example you could have a numeric processor delegator which delegates to an even/odd processor and a string processordelegator which delegates to different strings. My question is does this pattern have a name.

  Read the article

• How to pick a great working team?

  - by Javierfdr

  I've just finished my master and I'm starting to dig into the laboral world, i.e. learning how programming teams and technology companies work in the real world. I'm starting to design the idea of my own service or product based on free software, and I will require a well coupled, enthusiast and fluid team to build and the idea. My problem is that I'm not sure which would be the best skills to ask for a programming team of 4-5 members. I have many friends and acquaintances, with whom I've worked during my studies. Must of those ones I have in mind are very capable and smart people, with a good logic and programming base, although some of them have some characteristics that I believe that could influtiate negatively in the group: lack of communication, fear to debate ideas, hard to give when debating, lack of structured programming (testing, good commenting, previous design and analysis). Some of them have this negative characteristics, but must of them have a lot of enthusiasm, nice working skills (from an individual point of view), and ability to see the whole picture. The question is: how to pick the best team for a large scale project, with a lot of programming? Which of these negative skills do you think are just too influential? Which can be softened with good leadership? Wich good skills are to be expected? And any other opinion about social and programming skills of a programming team.

  Read the article

• Is there a Design Pattern for preventing dangling references?

  - by iFreilicht

  I was thinking about a design for custom handles. The thought is to prevent clients from copying around large objects. Now a regular handle class would probably suffice for that, but it doesn't solve the "dangling reference problem"; If a client has multiple handles of the same object and deletes the object via one of them, all the others would be invalid, but not know it, so the client could write or read parts of the memory he shouldn't have access to. Is there a design pattern to prevent this from happening? Two ideas: An observer-like pattern where the destructor of an object would notify all handles. "Handle handles" (does such a thing even exist?). All the handles don't really point to the object, but to another handle. When the object gets destroyed, this "master-handle" invalidates itself and therefore all that point to it.

  Read the article

• Refactoring and Open / Closed principle

  - by Giorgio

  I have recently being reading a web site about clean code development (I do not put a link here because it is not in English). One of the principles advertised by this site is the Open Closed Principle: each software component should be open for extension and closed for modification. E.g., when we have implemented and tested a class, we should only modify it to fix bugs or to add new functionality (e.g. new methods that do not influence the existing ones). The existing functionality and implementation should not be changed. I normally apply this principle by defining an interface I and a corresponding implementation class A. When class A has become stable (implemented and tested), I normally do not modify it too much (possibly, not at all), i.e. If new requirements arrive (e.g. performance, or a totally new implementation of the interface) that require big changes to the code, I write a new implementation B, and keep using A as long as B is not mature. When B is mature, all that is needed is to change how I is instantiated. If the new requirements suggest a change to the interface as well, I define a new interface I' and a new implementation A'. So I, A are frozen and remain the implementation for the production system as long as I' and A' are not stable enough to replace them. So, in view of these observation, I was a bit surprised that the web page then suggested the use of complex refactorings, "... because it is not possible to write code directly in its final form." Isn't there a contradiction / conflict between enforcing the Open / Closed Principle and suggesting the use of complex refactorings as a best practice? Or the idea here is that one can use complex refactorings during the development of a class A, but when that class has been tested successfully it should be frozen?

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Is writing software in the absence of requirements a skill to possess or a situation I should avoid?

  - by Brian Reindel

  I find that some software developers are very adept at this, and often times are praised for their ability to deliver a working concept with abstract requirements. Frankly, this drives me crazy, and I don't like "making it up" as I go. I used to think this was problematic, but I've started to sense a shift, and I'm wondering if I need to adjust my thought (and programming) process when given very little direction. Should I begin to acquire this ability as a skill, or stick to the idea that requirement's gathering and business rules are the first priority?

  Read the article

• Algorithm to Solve Most of a Problem

  - by Mike G

  I need an Algorithm/Design Pattern that allows me to try to get the maximum number of rules followed. So I have a couple teams and I need to pair them with a referee and against each other into a round robin. There a rules on who can compete with who and who can judge who so I need to find the configuration that satisfies the most of these. Some rules are more important than others and are "worth more" when evaluating "what satisfies the most of them" There probably isn't a algorithm for this, but is there a design pattern that could help me maximize my chances of finding this configuration?

  Read the article

• Oracle support note for Leap Second Hang problem that may result into 100% CPU utilization in Linux environment

  - by Anand Akela

  Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} On or around July 1, 2012, Oracle has become aware of an issue on Linux distributions resulting from the introduction of the leap second; this is causing problems for some customers.  Leap seconds may be introduced at the end of June or December in a calendar year, like 2012, as necessary to maintain time standards. Servers hosting Oracle products which are clients of an NTP server (Network Time Protocol) may be particularly susceptible to this issue as the NTP server is updated. Linux distributions which may be affected include Oracle Enterprise Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Oracle VM and Oracle Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel. Asianux 2 and 3, based on RHEL 4 and 5, may also be affected. One report of correction to high agent CPU using Note 1472421.1 on SLES11 has also been reported. Not all customers will be affected, but those, who are affected, may observe higher than normal CPU consumption on their Linux environments where JVM's are utilized.  In Oracle Enterprise Manager ( EM ) , this problem can manifest itself as high CPU consumption with the EM Agent process (which runs on a JVM in EM 12c, for instance).  It is possible that the OMS is also affected. We would advise customers to review the description of this problem in MOS Note 1472651.1 and take action if they observe that their environment is affected. Contributed by Andrew Bulloch , Director, Application Systems Management Products

  Read the article

• How to have operations with character/items in binary with concrete operations?

  - by Piperoman

  I have the next problem. A item can have a lot of states: NORMAL = 0000000 DRY = 0000001 HOT = 0000010 BURNING = 0000100 WET = 0001000 COLD = 0010000 FROZEN = 0100000 POISONED= 1000000 A item can have some states at same time but not all of them Is impossible to be dry and wet at same time. If you COLD a WET item, it turns into FROZEN. If you HOT a WET item, it turns into NORMAL A item can be BURNING and POISON Etc. I have tried to set binary flags to states, and use AND to combine different states, checking before if it is possible or not to do it, or change to another status. Does there exist a concrete approach to solve this problem efficiently without having an interminable switch that checks every state with every new state? It is relatively easy to check 2 different states, but if there exists a third state it is not trivial to do.

  Read the article

• How to manage long running background threads and report progress with DDD

  - by Mr Happy

  Title says most of it. I have found surprising little information about this. I have a long running operation of which the user wants to see the progress (as in, item x of y processed). I also need to be able to pause and stop the operation. (Stopping doesn't rollback the items already processed.) The thing is, it's not that each item takes a long time to get processed, it's that that there are usually a lot of items. And what I've read about so far is that it's somewhat of an anti-pattern to put something like a queue in the DB. I currently don't have any messaging system in place, and I've never worked with one either. Another thing I read somewhere is that progress reporting is something that belongs in the application layer, but it didn't go into the details. So having said all this, what I have in mind is the following. User request with list of items enters the application layer. Application layer gets some information from the domain needed to process the items. Application layer passes the items and the information off to some domain service (should the implementation of this service belong in the infrastructure layer?) This service spins up a worker thread with callbacks for both progress reporting and pausing/stopping it. This worker thread will process each item in it's own UoW. This means the domain information from earlier needs to be stored in some DTO. Since nothing is really persisted, the service should be singleton and thread safe Whenever a user requests a progress report or wants to pause/stop the operation, the application layer will ask the service. Would this be a correct solution? Or am I at least on the right track with this? Especially the singleton and thread safe part makes the whole thing feel icky.

  Read the article

• programming manner to solve problem

  - by gcc

  Everyone has style(s)/technique(s) to approach/solve real world problems. This/these technique(s) distinguish(es) us from other people or other programmers. (Actually, I think it make us a wanted/ great programmer/computer science ) To improve, we read a lot of books (ex : programming style, how to solve program, how to approach problem, software and algorithm). Can I learn your technique? In other words, if someone gives you a problem, at first step, what are you doing to solve it? (In all honesty, I want learn in what manner you are looking problem )

  Read the article

• Default values - are they good or evil?

  - by Andrew

  The question about default values in general - default return function values, default parameter values, default logic for when something is missing, default logic for handling exceptions, default logic for handling the edge conditions etc. For a long time I considered default values to be a "pure evil" thing, something that "cloaks the catastrophe" and results in a very hard do find bugs. But recently I started to think about default values as some sort of a technical debt ... which is not a straight bad thing but something that could provide some "short term financing" get us to survive the project (how many of us could afford to buy a house without taking out the mortgage?). When I say a "short term" - I don't mean - "do something quickly first and do refactor it out later before it hits the production". No - I am talking about relying on a hardcoded default values in a production software. Granted - it could cause some issues, but what if it only going to cause a single trouble in a whole year. Again - I am talking about the "average" mainstream software here (not a software for a nuclear power station) - the average web site or a UI application for the accounting software, meaning that people lives are not at stake, nor millions of dollars. Again, from my experience, business users would rather live with the software which "works somehow", rather then wait for a perfect one. And the use of default values helps a lot if you develop a software in a RAD style. But again - the longest debug sessions I have spent were because of the bugs introduced by a default value which either stopped being "a default" along the way or because a small subsystem has recently been upgraded and as a result of this upgrade it does not handle the default correctly (e.g. empty list vs null, or null string vs empty string). So my question is - are the default values good or evil. And if they are a technical debt - how do measure up how much you can borrow so you can afford the repayments? Would really appreciate any input. Cheers. EDIT: If I am using the default values as a way to cut the corners during the development - and if the corners cutting results in a bugs and issues - what is the methodology to recover from these issues?

  Read the article

• What is the meaning of 'high cohesion'?

  - by Max

  I am a student who recently joined a software development company as an intern. Back at the university, one of my professors used to say that we have to strive to achieve "Low coupling and high cohesion". I understand the meaning of low coupling. It means to keep the code of separate components separately, so that a change in one place does not break the code in another. But what is meant by high cohesion. If it means integrating the various pieces of the same component well with each other, I dont understand how that becomes advantageous. What is meant by high cohesion? Can an example be explained to understand its benefits?

  Read the article

• How can I selectively update XNA GameComponents?

  - by Bill

  I have a small 2D game I'm working on in XNA. So far, I have a player-controlled ship that operates on vector thrust and is terribly fun to spin around in circles. I've implemented this as a DrawableGameComponent and registered it with the game using game.Components.Add(this) in the Ship object constructor. How can I implement features like pausing and a menu system with my current implementation? Is it possible to set certain GameComponents to not update? Is this something for which I should even be using a DrawableGameComponent? If not, what are more appropriate uses for this?

  Read the article

• Started wrong with a project. Should I start over?

  - by solidsnake

  I'm a beginner web developer (one year of experience). A couple of weeks after graduating, I got offered a job to build a web application for a company whose owner is not much of a tech guy. He recruited me to avoid theft of his idea, the high cost of development charged by a service company, and to have someone young he can trust onboard to maintain the project for the long run (I came to these conclusions by myself long after being hired). Cocky as I was back then, with a diploma in computer science, I accepted the offer thinking I can build anything. I was calling the shots. After some research I settled on PHP, and started with plain PHP, no objects, just ugly procedural code. Two months later, everything was getting messy, and it was hard to make any progress. The web application is huge. So I decided to check out an MVC framework that would make my life easier. That's where I stumbled upon the cool kid in the PHP community: Laravel. I loved it, it was easy to learn, and I started coding right away. My code looked cleaner, more organized. It looked very good. But again the web application was huge. The company was pressuring me to deliver the first version, which they wanted to deploy, obviously, and start seeking customers. Because Laravel was fun to work with, it made me remember why I chose this industry in the first place - something I forgot while stuck in the shitty education system. So I started working on small projects at night, reading about methodologies and best practice. I revisited OOP, moved on to object-oriented design and analysis, and read Uncle Bob's book Clean Code. This helped me realize that I really knew nothing. I did not know how to build software THE RIGHT WAY. But at this point it was too late, and now I'm almost done. My code is not clean at all, just spaghetti code, a real pain to fix a bug, all the logic is in the controllers, and there is little object oriented design. I'm having this persistent thought that I have to rewrite the whole project. However, I can't do it... They keep asking when is it going to be all done. I can not imagine this code deployed on a server. Plus I still know nothing about code efficiency and the web application's performance. On one hand, the company is waiting for the product and can not wait anymore. On the other hand I can't see myself going any further with the actual code. I could finish up, wrap it up and deploy, but god only knows what might happen when people start using it. What do you think I should do?

  Read the article

• Which is more important in a web application code promotion hierarchy? production environment to repo equivalence or unidirectional propagation?

  - by ghbarratt

  Lets say you have a code promotion hierarchy consisting of several environments, (the polar end) two of which are development (dev) and production (prod). Lets say you also have a web application where important (but not developer controlled) files are created (and perhaps altered) in the production environment. Lets say that you (or someone above you) decided that the files which are controlled/created/altered/deleted in the production environment needed to go into the repository. Which of the following two sets of practice / approaches do you find best: Committing these non-developed file modifications made in the production environment so that the repository reflects the production environment as closely and as often as possible. Generally ignoring the non-developed production environment alterations, placing confidence in backups to restore the production environment should it be harmed, and keeping a resolution to avoid pushing developments through the promotion hierarchy in the reverse direction (avoiding pushing from prod to dev), only committing the files found in the production environment if they were absolutely necessary in other environments for development. So, 1 or 2, and why? PS - I am currently slightly biased toward maintaining production environment to repository equivalence (option 1), but I keep an open mind and would accept an answer supporting either.

  Read the article

• What is the simplest human readable configuration file format?

  - by Juha

  Current configuration file is as follows: mainwindow.title = 'test' mainwindow.position.x = 100 mainwindow.position.y = 200 mainwindow.button.label = 'apply' mainwindow.button.size.x = 100 mainwindow.button.size.y = 30 logger.datarate = 100 logger.enable = True logger.filename = './test.log' This is read with python to a nested dictionary: { 'mainwindow':{ 'button':{ 'label': {'value':'apply'}, ... }, 'logger':{ datarate: {'value': 100}, enable: {'value': True}, filename: {'value': './test.log'} }, ... } Is there a better way of doing this? The idea is to get XML type of behavior and avoid XML as long as possible. The end user is assumed almost totally computer illiterate and basically uses notepad and copy-paste. Thus the python standard "header + variables" type is considered too difficult. The dummy user edits the config file, able programmers handle the dictionaries. Nested dictionary is chosen for easy splitting (logger does not need or even cannot have/edit mainwindow parameters).

  Read the article

• Is it a good pattern that no objects should know more than what it needs to know?

  - by Jim Thio

  I am implementing a viewController class. The view controller class got NSNotification when the Grabbing class start or finish updating. I have 2 choices. I can make the grabbing class to provide a public read only property so all other classes can know whether it is still uploading. Or I can let view Controller to listen to 2 different events. Start updating and finish updating events. The truth is the viewController do need to know whether the grabbing class is still updating or not at any other time. So I am thinking of creating 2 events would be a better way to go. Actually, what do you think?

  Read the article

• Relative encapsulation design

  - by taher1992

  Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

  Read the article

• Best practice in setting return value (use else or?)

  - by Deckard

  Whenever you want to return a value from a method, but whatever you return depends on some other value, you typically use branching: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } else { return y; } } Another way to write this is: int calculateSomething() { if (a == b) { return x; } return y; } Is there any reason to avoid one or the other? Both allow adding "else if"-clauses without problems. Both typically generate compiler errors if you add anything at the bottom. Note: I couldn't find any duplicates, although multiple questions exist about whether the accompanying curly braces should be on their own line. So let's not get into that.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >