Search Results

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

Page 65/348 | < Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >

• What do you think about RefactoringManifesto.org?

  - by Gan

  Quite some time ago, on December 19 2010, a site called RefactoringManifesto.org was launched. The site is to voice concerns about refactoring. It lists ten main points as shown below (head over the website to see more details): Make your products live longer! Design should be simple so that it is easy to refactor. Refactoring is not rewriting. What doesn't kill it makes it stronger. Refactoring is a creative challenge. Refactoring survives fashion. To refactor is to discover. Refactoring is about independence. You can refactor anything, even total crap. Refactor – even in bad times! What do you think about this? Would you sign the manifesto? If not, why?

  Read the article

• What are the benefits vs costs of comment annotation in PHP?

  - by Patrick

  I have just started working with symfony2 and have run across comment annotations. Although comment annotation is not an inherent part of PHP, symfony2 adds support for this feature. My understanding of commenting is that it should make the code more intelligible to the human. The computer shouldn't care what is in comments. What benefits come from doing this type of annotation versus just putting a command in the normal PHP code? ie- /** * @Route("/{id}") * @Method("GET") * @ParamConverter("post", class="SensioBlogBundle:Post") * @Template("SensioBlogBundle:Annot:post.html.twig", vars={"post"}) * @Cache(smaxage="15") */ public function showAction(Post $post) { }

  Read the article

• "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

  - by Simon

  Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

  Read the article

• Is using Javascript/JQuery for layout and style bad practice?

  - by Renesis

  Many, but not all, HTML layout problems can be solved with CSS alone. For those that can't, JQuery (on document load) has become very popular.* As a result of its ease, many developers are quick to use JQuery or Javascript for layout and style — even without understanding whether or not the problem can be solved with CSS alone. This is illustrated by responses to questions like this one. Is this bad practice? What are the arguments for/against? Should someone who sees this in practice attempt to persuade those developers otherwise? If so, what are the best responses to arguments in favor of JQuery saying it's "so easy"? * Example: Layouts that wish to use vertical layout flow of some kind often run into dead ends with CSS alone — this would include layouts similar to Pinterest, though I'm not sure that's actually impossible with CSS.

  Read the article

• Is there such a thing as having too many private functions/methods?

  - by shovonr

  I understand the importance of well documented code. But I also understand the importance of self-documenting code. The easier it is to visually read a particular function, the faster we can move on during software maintenance. With that said, I like to separate big functions into other smaller ones. But I do so to a point where a class can have upwards of five of them just to serve one public method. Now multiply five private methods by five public ones, and you get around twenty-five hidden methods that are probably going to be called only once by those public ones. Sure, it's now easier to read those public methods, but I can't help but think that having too many functions is bad practice.

  Read the article

• Harmful temptations in programming

  - by gaearon

  Just curious, what kinds of temptations in programming turned out to be really harmful in your projects? Like when you really feel the urge to do something and you believe it's going to benefit the project or else you just trick yourself into believing it is, and after a week you realize you haven't solved any real problems but instead created new ones or, in the best case, pleased your inner beast with no visible impact. Personally, I find it very hard to not refactor bad code. I work with a lot of bad legacy code, and it takes some deep breaths to not touch it when I have no tests to prove my refactoring doesn't not break anything. Another demon for me in user interface, I can literally spend hours changing UI layout just because I enjoy doing it. Sometimes I tell myself I'm working on usability, but the truth is just I love moving buttons around. What are your programming demons, and how do you avoid them?

  Read the article

• How to layer if statements when order of logic is irrelevant?

  - by jimmyjimmy

  Basically I have a series of logic in my website that can lead to 5 total outcomes. Basically two different if tests and then a catch all else statement. For example: if cond1: if mod1: #do things elif mod2: #do things elif cond2: if mod1: #do things elif mod2 #do things else: #do things I was thinking about rewriting it like this: if cond1 and mod1: #do things elif cond1 and mod2: #do things elif cond2 and mod1: #do things elif cond2 and mod2: #do things else: #do things Is there any real difference in these two coding options/a better choice for this kind of logic testing?

  Read the article

• Should Developers Perform All Tasks or Should They Specialize?

  - by Bob Horn

  Disclaimer: The intent of this question isn't to discern what is better for the individual developer, but for the system as a whole. I've worked in environments where small teams managed certain areas. For example, there would be a small team for every one of these functions: UI Framework code Business/application logic Database I've also worked on teams where the developers were responsible for all of these areas and more (QA, analsyt, etc...). My current environment promotes agile development (specifically scrum) and everyone has their hands in every area mentioned above. While there are pros and cons to each approach, I'd be curious to know if there are more pros and cons than I list below, and also what the generally feeling is about which approach is better. Devs Do It All Pros 1. Developers may be more well-rounded 2. Developers know more of the system Cons 1. Everyone has their hands in all areas, increasing the probability of creating less-than-optimal results in that area 2. It can take longer to do something with which you are unfamiliar (jack of all trades, master of none) Devs Specialize Pros 1. Developers can create policies and procedures for their area of expertise and more easily enforce them 2. Developers have more of a chance to become deeply knowledgeable about their specific area and make it the best it can be 3. Other developers don't cross boundaries and degrade another area Cons 1. As one colleague put it: "Why would you want to pigeon-hole yourself like that?" (Meaning some developers won't get a chance to work in certain areas.) It's easy to say how wonderful agile is, and that we should do it all, but I'm somewhat of a fan of having areas of expertise. Without that expertise, I've seen code degrade, database schemas become difficult to manage, hack UI code, etc... Let's face it, some people make careers out of doing just UI work, or just database work. It's not that easy to just fill in and do as good of a job as an expert in that area.

  Read the article

• ASP.NET design not SOLID

  - by w0051977

  SOLID principles are described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOLID_%28object-oriented_design%29 I am developing a large ASP.NET app. The previous developer created a few very large classes each with lots of different purposes. It is very difficult to maintain and extend. The classes are deployed to the web server along with the code behind files etc. I want to share a small amount of the app with another application. I am considering moving all of the classes of the ASP.NET web app to a DLL, so the small subset of functionality can be shared. I realise it would be better to only share the classes which contain code to be shared but because of the dependencies this is proving to be very difficult e.g. class A contains code that should be shared, however class A contains references to classes B, C, D, E, F, G etc, so class A cannot be shared on its own. I am planning to refactor the code in the future. As a temporary solution I am planning to convert all the classes into a single class library. Is this a bad idea and if so, is there an alternative? as I don't have time to refactor at the moment.

  Read the article

• Is the "One Description Table to rule them all" approch good?

  - by DavRob60

  Long ago, I worked (as a client) with a software which use a centralized table for it's codified element. Here, as far as I remember, how the table look like : Table_Name (PK) Field_Name (PK) Code (PK) Sort_Order Description So, instead of creating a table every time they need a codified field, they where just adding row in this table with the new Table_Name and Field_Name. I'm sometime tempted to use this pattern in some database I design, but I have resisted to this as from now, I think there's something wrong with this, but I cannot put the finger on it. It is just because you land with some of the structure logic within the Data or something else?

  Read the article

• Catching typos or other errors in web-based scripting languages

  - by foreyez

  Hi, My background is mainly strongly typed languages (java, c++, c#). Having recently gotten back to a bit of javascript, I found it a bit annoying that if I misspell something by accident (for example I'll type 'myvar' instead of 'myVar') my entire script crashes. The browser itself most of the time doesn't even tell me I have an error, my program will just be blank, etc. Then I have to hunt down my code line by line and find the error which is very time consuming. In the languages I am used to the compiler lets me know if I made a typo. My question to you is, how do you overcome this issue in scripting (javascript)? Can you give me some tips? (this question is mainly aimed at people that have also come from a strongly typed language). Note: I mainly use the terminal/VIM ... this is mainly b/c I like terminal and I SSH alot too

  Read the article

• best way to send messages to all subscribers with multiple subscriptions and multiple providers

  - by coding_idiot

  I'm writing an application in which - Many users can subsribe to posts made by another users. So for a single publisher there can be many subscribers. When a message is posted by an user X, all users who have subscribed to messages of User X will be sent an email. How to achieve this ? I'm thinking of using publish-subscribe pattern. And then I came through JMS. Which is the best JMS implementation to use according to your experience ? Or else what else solution do you propose to the given problem ? Shall I go for a straight-forward solution ?: User x posts a message, I find all users (from database) who subscribe to user x and then for every user, I call the sendEmail() method. [EDIT] My intention here is not to send-emails. I'm really sorry if it wasn't clear. I also have to send kind of system-notifications apart from Email to all subscribers. Right now, I've implemented the email-sending as a threadPool

  Read the article

• What Design Pattern is seperating transform converters

  - by RevMoon

  For converting a Java object model into XML I am using the following design: For different types of objects (e.g. primitive types, collections, null, etc.) I define each its own converter, which acts appropriate with respect to the given type. This way it can easily extended without adding code to a huge if-else-then construct. The converters are chosen by a method which tests whether the object is convertable at all and by using a priority ordering. The priority ordering is important so let's say a List is not converted by the POJO converter, even though it is convertable as such it would be more appropriate to use the collection converter. What design pattern is that? I can only think of a similarity to the command pattern.

  Read the article

• SEO & Multilingual: would be this a good practise?

  - by Younès

  I am currently making a bilingual website and I'd like to get nice SEO results of course. Here's my idea: The internal links would be composed of the "www" subdomain so that people can share links regardless of their language. Anyway, their language is determined by the HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE PHP variable. So, they would see http:// www.site.com/mydocument/123 in their adress bar and never see any links like "http:// fr.site.com/mydocument/123" or "http://en.site.com/mydocument/123" The user can always switch the page's language thanks to links in the footer. The switching language link would be : http:// fr.site.com/mydocument/123 , and clicking on it would change his language session and redirects the user to http:// www.site.com/mydocument/123 In case of a crawling bot: I read that if the HTTP_USER_LANGUAGE variable was missing then it's a crawling bot. So, in that case, we set the defaut language as English. Each page, as I mentionned earlier, has a link for another language: On the page: http:// www.site.com/document/1323, the link http:// fr.site.com/document/1323 can be seen by the bot and be crawled. What do you think about this practise ? Would I get good SEO results for each language ?

  Read the article

• What Pattern will solve this - fetching dependent record from database

  - by tunmise fasipe

  I have these classes class Match { int MatchID, int TeamID, //used to reference Team ... other fields } Note: Match actually have 2 teams which means 2 TeamID class Team { int TeamID, string TeamName } In my view I need to display List<Match> showing the TeamName. So I added another field class Match { int MatchID, int TeamID, //used to reference Team ... other fields string TeamName; } I can now do Match m = getMatch(id); m.TeamName = getTeamName(m.TeamId); //get name from database But for a List<Match>, getTeamName(TeamId) will go to the database to fetch TeamName for each TeamID. For a page of 10 Matches per page, that could be (10x2Teams)=20 trip to database. To avoid this, I had the idea of loading everything once, store it in memory and only lookup the TeamName in memory. This made me have a rethink that what if the records are 5000 or more. What pattern is used to solve this and how?

  Read the article

• Is the structure used for these web pages a design pattern?

  - by aspdotnetuser

  I want to know if the structure for an ASP.NET website I'm working on uses a design pattern for it's web pages. If it is a design pattern, what is it called? The web pages have the following structure: UserDetails page (UserDetails.aspx) - includes UserDetailsController.ascx user control. UserDetailsController.ascx includes sub user controls like UserAccountDetails.ascx and UserLoginDetails.ascx etc Each sub user control contains a small amount of code/logic, the 'controller' user controls that host these sub user controls (i.e UserDetailsController.ascx) appear to call the business rules code and pass the data to the sub user controls. Is this a design pattern? What is it called?

  Read the article

• Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

  - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun

  Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

  Read the article

• does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

  - by Michael Riva

  I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

  Read the article

• returning null vs returning zero, which would be better?

  - by Dark Star1

  I inherited a project that I am managing and having to maintain pending the redevelopment of the code base. At the moment I am being tasked with adding little feature all over the place and have gotten into the habit of returning null instead of zero in parts of the code where I am working on. The problem is we have a client that is using this code and parts of code that require data from my implemented features recieve a null and dump the stack trace in UI. I would like to avoid this entirely from my input but without the nullPointer exceptions there's the potential that errors would be introduced into the client's data which may go un-noticed. Usually I would have come up with my own error notification system but I have never inherited a project before. so I am unsure whether to continue down this path. I still believe that the stack dump is preferable to un-noticed data corruption/inaccuracies.

  Read the article

• What to do as a new team lead on a project with maintainability problems?

  - by Mr_E

  I have just been put in charge of a code project with maintainability problems. What things can I do to get the project on a stable footing? I find myself in a place where we are working with a very large multi-tiered .NET system that is missing a lot of the important things such as unit tests, IOC, MEF, too many static classes, pure datasets etc. I'm only 24 but I've been here for almost three years (this app has been in development for 5) and mostly due to time constraints we've been just adding in more crap to fit the other crap. After doing a number of projects in my free time I have begun to understand just how important all those concepts are. Also due to employee shifting I find myself to now be the team lead on this project and I really want to come up with some smart ways to improve this app. Ways where the value can be explained to management. I have ideas of what I would like to do but they all seem so overwhelming without much upfront gain. Any stories of how people have or would have dealt with this would be a very interesting read. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Is there a name for this use of the State design pattern?

  - by Chris C

  I'm looking to see if there is a particular name for this style of programming a certain kind of behavior into a program. Said program runs in real time, in an update loop, and the program uses the State design pattern to do some work, but it's the specific way it does the work that I want to know about. Here's how it's used. - Object Foo constructed, with concrete StateA object in it - First loop runs --- Foo.Run function calls StateA.Bar --- in StateA.Bar replace Foo's state to StateB - Second loop runs --- Foo.Run calls StateB.Bar - Third loop runs --- Foo.Run calls StateB.Bar - Fourth loop --- etc. So in short, Foo doesn't have an explicit Initialize function. It will just have Run, but Run will do something unique in the first frame to initialize something for Foo and then replace it with a different action that will repeat in all the frames following it- thus not needing to check if Foo's already initialized. It's just a "press start and go" action. What would you call implementing this type of behavior?

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern or logical structure I can follow for Event Log Numbers?

  - by makerofthings7

  What are some ideas or structure I can use when assigning EventID to events that will be saved to the Event Log? Some options I've considered Sequential (0... int.Max) Multiple of 10, where the "0" is replaced with how noisy the debugLevel is set. xxx0 may represent exceptions, critical information, start, stop etc. ...? What numbering approach gives you the most insight when a user describes the event in an email or phone? What is the most useful to support staff?

  Read the article

• Which things instantly ring alarm bells when looking at code? [closed]

  - by FinnNk

  I attended a software craftsmanship event a couple of weeks ago and one of the comments made was "I'm sure we all recognize bad code when we see it" and everyone nodded sagely without further discussion. This sort of thing always worries me as there's that truism that everyone thinks they're an above average driver. Although I think I can recognize bad code I'd love to learn more about what other people consider to be code smells as it's rarely discussed in detail on people's blogs and only in a handful of books. In particular I think it'd be interesting to hear about anything that's a code smell in one language but not another. I'll start off with an easy one: Code in source control that has a high proportion of commented out code - why is it there? was it meant to be deleted? is it a half finished piece of work? maybe it shouldn't have been commented out and was only done when someone was testing something out? Personally I find this sort of thing really annoying even if it's just the odd line here and there, but when you see large blocks interspersed with the rest of the code it's totally unacceptable. It's also usually an indication that the rest of the code is likely to be of dubious quality as well.

  Read the article

• Should I use the factory design pattern for every class?

  - by Frog

  I've been writing a website in PHP. As the code becomes more complex, I keep finding problems that can be solved using the factory design pattern. For example: I've a got a class Page which has subclasses HTMLPage, XMLPage, etc. Depending on some input I need to return an object of either one of these classes. I use the factory design pattern to do this. But as I encounter this problem in more classes, I keep having to change code which still initiates an object using its constructor. So now I'm wondering: is it a good idea to change all code so that it uses the factory design pattern? Or are there big drawbacks? I'm currently in a position to change this, so your answers would be really helpful.

  Read the article

• IoC containers and service locator pattern

  - by TheSilverBullet

  I am trying to get an understanding of Inversion of Control and the dos and donts of this. Of all the articles I read, there is one by Mark Seemann (which is widely linked to in SO) which strongly asks folks not to use the service locator pattern. Then somewhere along the way, I came across this article by Ken where he helps us build our own IoC. I noticed that is is nothing but an implementation of service locator pattern. Questions: Is my observation correct that this implementation is the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is yes, then Do all IoC containers (like Autofac) use the service locator pattern? If the answer to 1. is no, then why is this differen? Is there any other pattern (other than DI) for inversion of control?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72  | Next Page >