Search Results

Search found 859 results on 35 pages for 'versus'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 7/35 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • 'abstract class' versus 'normal class' for a reusable library

    - by Greg
    I'm developing a reusable library and have been creating abstract classes, so the client can then extend from these. QUESTION: Is there any reason in fact I should use an abstract class here as opposed to just a normal class? Note - Have already decided I do not want to use interfaces as I want to include actual default methods in my library so the client using it doesn't have to write the code.

    Read the article

  • Generics and Constrained Polymorphism versus Subtyping

    - by Rahul G
    Hullo all. In this (Warning: PDF) presentation on Haskell Type Classes, on slide #54, there's this question: Open Question: In a language with generics and constrained polymorphism, do you need subtyping too? My questions are: How do generics and constrained polymorphism make subtyping unnecessary? If generics and constrained polymorphism make subtyping unnecessary, why does Scala have subtyping?

    Read the article

  • Traditional loop versus Action delegate in C#

    - by emddudley
    After learning about the Action delegate in C# I've been looking for ways I can best use it in my code. I came up with this pattern: Action<string> DoSomething = (lSomething) => { // Do something }; DoSomething("somebody"); DoSomething("someone"); DoSomething("somewhere"); If I were to have used a traditional loop, it would look something like this: List<string> lSomeList = new List<string>(); lSomeList.Add("somebody"); lSomeList.Add("someone"); lSomeList.Add("somewhere"); foreach (string lSomething in lSomeList) { // Do something } Are there any appreciable differences between the two? To me they look equally easy to understand and maintain, but are there some other criteria I might use to distinguish when one might be preferred over the other?

    Read the article

  • computing hash values, integral types versus struct/class

    - by aaa
    hello I would like to know if there is a difference in speed between computing hash value (for example std::map key) of primitive integral type, such as int64_t and pod type, for example struct { int16_t v[4]; };. I know this is going to implementation specific, so my question ultimately pertains to gnu standard library. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Schemas and tables versus user-ids in a single table using PostgreSQL

    - by gvkv
    I'm developing a web app and I've come to a fork in the road with respect to database structure and I don't know which direction to take. I have a database with user information that I can structure one of two ways. The first is to create a schema and a set of tables for each user (duplicating the structure for each user) and the second is to create a single set of tables and query information based on user-id. Suppose 100000 users. Here are my questions: Considering security, performance, scalability and administration where does each choice lie? Would the answers change for 1000000 or 10000? Is there a set of best practices that lead to one choice or the other? It seems to me that multiple schemas are more secure since it's trivial to restrict user privileges but what about performance and scalability? Administration seems like a wash since dumping (and restoring) lots of schemas isn't any more difficult than dumping a few.

    Read the article

  • IoC / Dependency Injection - please explain code versus XML

    - by steve.macdonald
    I understand basically how IoC frameworks work, however one thing I don't quite get is how code-based config is supposed to work. With XML I understand how you could add a new assembly to a deployed application, then change the config in XML to include it. If the application is already deployed (i.e., compiled in some form) then how can code changes be made without recompiling? Or is that what people do, just change config in code and recompile?

    Read the article

  • silverlight 3 listbox item highlight versus selected.

    - by cody
    I have a listbox and am attempting to select and item in code. Sometime one item is highlighted, that is it is background is colored blue, but a different item has a square blue box around the it (no highlighting just an hollow outline of a box). Am I correct in saying one is "highlighted" and one is "selected" and do I have them correctly identified? Should this be happening... that is these 2 things being out of sync? Thanks Cody

    Read the article

  • rails HABTM versus view (formtastic)

    - by VP
    I have two models: The model NetworkObject try to describe "hosts". I want to have a rule with source and destination, so i'm trying to use both objects from the same class since it dont makes sense to create two different classes. class NetworkObject < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :ip, :netmask, :name has_many :statements has_many :rules, :through =>:statements end class Rule < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :active, :destination_ids, :source_ids has_many :statements has_many :sources, :through=> :statements, :source=> :network_object has_many :destinations, :through => :statements, :source=> :network_object end To build the HABTM i did choose the Model JOIN. so in this case i created a model named Statement with: class Statement < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :source_id, :rule_id, :destination_id belongs_to :network_object, :foreign_key => :source_id belongs_to :network_object, :foreign_key => :destination_id belongs_to :rule end The problem is: is right to add two belongs_to to the same class using different foreign_keys? I tried all combinations like: belongs_to :sources, :class_name => :network_object, :foreign_key => :source_id but no success.. anything that i am doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Is there a difference SMO ServerConnection transaction methods versus using the SqlConnectionObject

    - by YWE
    I am using SMO to create databases and tables on a SQL Server. I want to do so in a transaction. Are both of these methods of doing so valid and equivalent: First method: Server server; //... server.ConnectionContext.BeginTransaction(); //... server.ConnectionContext.CommitTransaction(); Second method: Server server; // ... SqlConnection conn = server.ConnectionContext.SqlConnectionObject; SqlTransaction trans = conn.BeginTransaction(); // ... trans.Commit();

    Read the article

  • Require-Bundle and Import-Package versus feature.xml requires

    - by Robert Munteanu
    When building an Eclipse plugin (lato sensu) which consists of multiple plugins and one feature, I have two ways of specifying dependencies: in the plugins themselves, using Require-Bundle and Import-Package in META-INF/MANIFEST.MF; in the feature.xml file from the feature. In my understanding, it should be enough to declare the dependencies at the lower level, i.e. in the plugins. Why do we still have the feature.xml requires mechanism?

    Read the article

  • django url user id versus userprofile id problem

    - by dana
    hello there, i have a mini comunity where each user can search and find another user profile. Userprofile is a class model, indexed differently compared to user model class (user id is not equal to userprofile id) But i cannot see a user profile by typing in the url the corresponding id. I only see the profile of the currently logged in user. Why is that? I'd also want to have in my url the username (a primary key of the user table also) and NOT the id (a number). The guilty part of the code is: what can i replace that request.user with so that it wil actually display the user i searched for, and not the currently logged in? def profile_view(request, id): u = UserProfile.objects.get(pk=id) cv = UserProfile.objects.filter(created_by = request.user) blog = New.objects.filter(created_by = request.user) return render_to_response('profile/publicProfile.html', { 'u':u, 'cv':cv, 'blog':blog, }, context_instance=RequestContext(request)) in urls (of the accounts app): url(r'^profile_view/(?P<id>\d+)/$', profile_view, name='profile_view'), and in template: <h3>Recent Entries:</h3> {% load pagination_tags %} {% autopaginate list 10 %} {% paginate %} {% for object in list %} <li>{{ object.post }} <br /> Voted: {{ vote.count }} times.<br /> {% for reply in object.reply_set.all %} {{ reply.reply }} <br /> {% endfor %} <a href=''> {{ object.created_by }}</a> <br /> {{object.date}} <br /> <a href = "/vote/save_vote/{{object.id}}/">Vote this</a> <a href="/replies/save_reply/{{object.id}}/">Comment</a> </li> {% endfor %} thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Safari openwindow function behavior on iPad versus iPhone

    - by CodeLizard
    An identical javascript:openwindow call with a link to Google maps opens in Safari on the iPad but in the Google Maps App on the iPhone. Why the difference? <html> <head> </head> <body> <a title="View an area map for this property" href="javascript:openwindow ('http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1+Infinite+Loop, +Cupertino,+CA%E2%80%8E&sll=37.329389, -122.029696&sspn=0.015714,0.033023&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1+Infinite+Loop, +Cupertino,+Santa+Clara, +California+95014&ll=37.331539, -122.030704&spn=0.007857,0.016512&z=17&ssa=1', 760, 500,'yes', 'yes')"> <font face="arial,helvetica" color="#000000" size="-1">Map It</font> </a> </body> <script> function openwindow(url,width,height,resizable,scrollbars,posx,posy) { if(posx==null)posx=20; if(posy==null)posy=20; now=new Date(); var x_offset=0; var y_offset=0; try { if(window.screen.left != undefined && window.screen.top != undefined) { x_offset=window.screen.left; y_offset=window.screen.top; } }catch(e){} var window_x=posx+x_offset; var window_y=posy+y_offset; new_window=window.open(url,now.getTime(),'width='+width+',height='+height+', resizable='+resizable+',scrollbars='+scrollbars+',top='+window_y+', left='+window_x+',screenX='+window_x+',screenY='+window_y); if(!new_window.opener) new_window.opener=self; try { new_window.focus(); }catch(e){} } </script> </html>

    Read the article

  • PostScript versus PDF as an output format

    - by Brecht Machiels
    I'm currently writing a typesetting application and I'm using PSG as the backend for producing postscript files. I'm now wondering whether that choice makes sense. It seems the ReportLab Toolkit offers all the features PSG offers, and more. ReportLab outputs PDF however. Advantages PDF offers: transparancy better support for character encodings (Unicode, for example) ability to embed TrueType and even OpenType fonts hyperlinks and bookmarks Is there any reason to use Postscript instead of directly outputting to PDF? While Postscript is a full programming language as opposed to PDF, as a basic output format for documents, that doesn't seem to offer any advantage. I assume a PDF can be readily converted to PostScript for printing? Some useful links: Wikipedia: PDF Adobe: PostScript vs. PDF

    Read the article

  • nHibernate versus LLBLGen Pro

    - by Rippo
    I am trying to work out with ORM tool to move over to and have narrowed it down to two candidates. nHibernate or LLBLGen Pro Please can you guys give me pros and cons in using both these tools especially if you have experience in both. I am not really interested in any other tools but am wanting some heads up so I can decide which tool to spend time learning.... I already know that one is free and one isn't, I also know that nHibernate might take some learning.... Many thanks, Richard

    Read the article

  • Precision of cos(atan2(y,x)) versus using complex <double>, C++

    - by Ivan
    Hi all, I'm writing some coordinate transformations (more specifically the Joukoswky Transform, Wikipedia Joukowsky Transform), and I'm interested in performance, but of course precision. I'm trying to do the coordinate transformations in two ways: 1) Calculating the real and complex parts in separate, using double precision, as below: double r2 = chi.x*chi.x + chi.y*chi.y; //double sq = pow(r2,-0.5*n) + pow(r2,0.5*n); //slow!!! double sq = sqrt(r2); //way faster! double co = cos(atan2(chi.y,chi.x)); double si = sin(atan2(chi.y,chi.x)); Z.x = 0.5*(co*sq + co/sq); Z.y = 0.5*si*sq; where chi and Z are simple structures with double x and y as members. 2) Using complex : Z = 0.5 * (chi + (1.0 / chi)); Where Z and chi are complex . There interesting part is that indeed the case 1) is faster (about 20%), but the precision is bad, giving error in the third decimal number after the comma after the inverse transform, while the complex gives back the exact number. So, the problem is on the cos(atan2), sin(atan2)? But if it is, how the complex handles that? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Mod_wsgi versus fapws3 - Django

    - by RadiantHex
    Hi folks, is there a difference between using FAPWS3 and MOD_WSGI when dealing with Django? FAPWS3 seems alot faster when serving requests toward Python scripts. I would like to know if I'm missing out anything. :) Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Cherrypicking versus Rebasing

    - by Lakshman Prasad
    The following is a scenario I commonly face: You have a set of commits on master or design, that I want to put on top of production branch. I tend to create a new branch with the base as production cherry-pick these commits on it and merge it to production Then when I merge master to production, I face merge conflicts because even tho the changes are same, but are registered as a different commit because of cherry-pick. I have found some workarounds to deal with this, all of which are laborious and can be termed "hacks". Altho' I haven't done too much rebasing, I believe that too creates a new commit hash. Should I be using rebasing where I am cherrypicking. What other advantages does that have over this.

    Read the article

  • jQuery $.each(arr, foo) versus $(arr).each(foo)

    - by Brian M. Hunt
    In jQuery, what's the difference between the following two constructions of jQuery.each: // Given var arr = [1,2,3,4], results = [], foo = function (index, element) { /* something done to/with each element */ results.push(element * element); // arbitrary thing. } // construction #1 $.each(arr, foo); // results = [1,4,9,16] // construction #2 $(arr).each(foo); // results = [1,4,9,16] Is there any difference, or is it purely syntax?

    Read the article

  • Polling versus socket servers for online Flash games

    - by justin
    Hi, I want to make an online flash game, it will have social features but the gameplay will be primarily single-player. For example, no two players will appear on the screen at once, the social interaction will be through asynchronous messages, there won't be real-time chat or anything. Much of the logic would happen in the client, the server would validate the client logic, but it wouldn't need to be totally synchronous, which is why I'm thinking polling might be satisfactory. I have read in many places that socket servers can be more efficient than using polling for online games, but is that mainly a consideration for games that are more multi-player with more mult-player interactions than the game I have descriebed? If many users are playing online at the same time, but each playing a relatively isolated game, and not interacting to in real-time with each players, could polling be okay, or would using sockets be advisable no matter what if you have an online game that you envision many people playing at the same time? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >