Search Results

Search found 5915 results on 237 pages for 'practices'.

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 102/237 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

  • Under what circumstances is jQuery's document.ready() not required?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    While John Resig's recommendation is, quite rightly, to declare all events within a jquery.document.ready() function, I know that you don't actually have to put everything in there. In fact, there are cases where it may be more appropriate to deliberately put methods outside of the ready event. But what are those cases? Obviously best practice dictates that all events are declared within the ready event, so what would best practice be for declarations outside that event?

    Read the article

  • Manually setting object's position or have the object do it all?

    - by N. Lucas
    I'm stuck thinking about the best way to go about setting a line segment's position, I have a class Line(length, angle, previous) being called from a class Polygon.. Right now I have: public function Line(length:Number, angle:Number, previous:Line = null) { if (previous != null) { this.x = previous.end.x; this.y = previous.end.y; } /**/ } Now, is this the best practice or should I be doing: Polygon.addLine(length:Number, angle:Number):void { var previous = _line[_line.length - 1]; // Array containing all Lines var line:Line = new Line(length, angle, previous); line.x = previous.end.x; line.y = previous.end.y; /**/ }

    Read the article

  • Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

    - by Mendelt
    I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

    Read the article

  • Why is hibernate open session in view considered a bad practice?

    - by HeDinges
    And what kind of alternative strategies do you use for avoiding LazyLoadExceptions? I do understand that open session in view has issues with: Layered applications running in different jvm's Transactions are committed only at the end, and most probably you would like the results before. But, if you know that your application is running on a single vm, why not ease your pain by using an open session in view strategy?

    Read the article

  • Howto mix TDD and RAII

    - by f4
    I'm trying to make extensive tests for my new project but I have a problem. Basically I want to test MyClass. MyClass makes use of several other class which I don't need/want to do their job for the purpose of the test. So I created mocks (I use gtest and gmock for testing) But MyClass instantiate everything it needs in it's constructor and release it in the destructor. That's RAII I think. So I thought, I should create some kind of factory, which creates everything and gives it to MyClass's constructor. That factory could have it's fake for testing purposes. But's thats no longer RAII right? Then what's the good solution here?

    Read the article

  • Recommendations with hierarchical data on non-relational databases?

    - by Luki
    I'm developing an web application that uses a non-relational database as a backend (django-nonrel + AppEngine). I need to store some hierarchical data (projects/subproject_1/subproject_N/tasks), and I'm wondering which pattern should I use. For now I thought of: Adjacency List (store the item's parent id) Nested sets (store left and right values for the item) In my case, the depth of nesting for a normal user will not exceed 4-5 levels. Also, on the UI, I would like to have a pagination for the items on the first level, to avoid to load too many items at the first page load. From what I understand so far, nested sets are great when the hierarchy is used more for displaying. Adjacency lists are great when editing on the tree is done often. In my case I guess I need the displaying more than the editing (when using nested sets, even if the display would work great, the above pagination could complicate things on editing). Do you have any thoughts and advice, based on your experience with the non-relational databases?

    Read the article

  • Get absolute (base) url in sinatra.

    - by berkes
    Right now, I do a get '/' do set :base_url, "#{request.env['rack.url_scheme']}://#{request.env['HTTP_HOST']}" # ... haml :index end to be able to use options.base_url in the HAML index.haml. But I am sure there is a far better, DRY, way of doing this. Yet I cannot see, nor find it. (I am new to Sinatra :)) Somehow, outside of get, I don't have request.env available, or so it seems. So putting it in an include did not work. How do you get your base url?

    Read the article

  • Opinions regarding C++ programming practice

    - by Sagar
    I have a program that I am writing, not too big. Apart from the main function, it has about 15 other functions that called for various tasks at various times. The code works just fine all in one file, and as it is right now. However, I was wondering if anyone had any advice on whether it is smarter/more efficient/better programming to put those functions in a separate file different from where main is, or whether it even matters at all. If yes, why? If no, why not? I am not new at C++, but definitely not an expert either, so if you think this question is stupid, feel free to tell me so. Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • Debugging a Browser Redirect Loop

    - by just_wes
    Hi all, I am using CakePHP with the Auth and ACL components. My page loads fine for non-registered users, but if I try to log in as a registered user I get an infinite redirect loop in the browser. I am sure that this is some sort of permissions problem, but the problem exists even for users who have permissions for everything. The only way to prevent this behavior is to allow '*' in my AppController's beforeFilter method. What is the best way to debug this sort of problem? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Eclipse: Should I create a workspace for each project ?

    - by Zombies
    I am simply wondering whether it is best to put all of my Eclipse projects into one workspace, or do a 1 workspace per 1 project. I am just a solo developer, for hobby more or less, but the apps I create do actually have production versions that are running on rather frequent cron jobs, so its almost like an amateur production environment. The only problems I have noticed so far is for exporting JARs, I have the potential to include source files from other projects which seems like it could get messy (maybe?).

    Read the article

  • Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery related.

    - by Alex
    So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value? And yes, if the option has a value attribute I know I can do something like this: $('select[name=foo] option:contains("BarCheese")').attr('selected', 'selected'); But I would still really like to know why this is done. Thanks!!

    Read the article

  • What is a 'better' approach to query/save from server: DTO or Wcf Data Services?

    - by bonefisher
    From my perspective, the Data Services and their query approach is useful when querying simple object graphs from your server-side domain model. But when you want to query complex dependencies I couldn't create anything good out of it. The classic DTO approach is fine-grained and can handle everything, but the downside is that you have to create Dto classes for every type of server-request which is time consuming and you have to synchronize the Dto type with your domain entity/business logic.

    Read the article

  • Sharing a database connection with included classes in a Sinatra application

    - by imightbeinatree
    I'm converting a part of a rails application to its own sinatra application. It has some beefy work to do and rather than have a million helps in app.rb, I've separated some of it out into classes. Without access to rails I'm rewriting finder several methods and needing access to the database inside of my class. What's the best way to share a database connection between your application and a class? Or would you recommend pushing all database work into its own class and only having the connection established there? Here is what I have in in app.rb require 'lib/myclass' configure :production do MysqlDB = Sequel.connect('mysql://user:password@host:port/db_name') end I want to access it in lib/myclass.rb class Myclass def self.find_by_domain_and_stub(domain, stub) # want to do a query here end end I've tried several things but nothing that seems to work well enough to even include as an example.

    Read the article

  • How to solve the "Growing If Statement" problem?

    - by Achilles
    I've been doing some reading about design patterns and wanted some perspective. Consider the following: Dim objGruntWorker as IGruntWorker if SomeCriteria then objGruntWorker = new GoFor() else if SomeOtherCriteria then objGruntWorker = new Newb() else if SomeCriteriaAndTheKitchenSink then objGruntWorker = new CubeRat() end if objGruntWorker.GetBreakfast() system.threading.thread.sleep(GetMilliSecondsFromHours(4)) objGruntWorker.GetLunch() The above code grows each time a new Criteria arises. I've seen code like this all over the place and in ignorance wrote some of it myself. How should this be solved? Does this kind of anti-pattern have a more "formal" name? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern

    - by gsharp
    We are using ASP.NET with a lot of AJAX "Page Method" calls. The WebServices defined in the Page invokes methods from our BusinessLayer. To prevent hackers to call the Page Methods, we want to implement some security in the BusinessLayer. We are struggling with two different issues. First one: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // do stuff } This Method should be called by Authorized Users with the Role "HR". Second one: public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // do sutff } This Method should only be called by the owner of the Order. I know it's easy to implement the security for each method like: public List<Employees> GetAllEmployees() { // check if the user is in Role HR } or public Order GetMyOrder(int orderId) { // check if the order.Owner = user } What I'm looking for is some pattern/best practice to implement this kind of security in a generic way (without coding the the if then else every time) I hope you get what i mean :-)

    Read the article

  • Is it Bad Practice to use C++ only for the STL containers?

    - by gmatt
    First a little background ... In what follows, I use C,C++ and Java for coding (general) algorithms, not gui's and fancy program's with interfaces, but simple command line algorithms and libraries. I started out learning about programming in Java. I got pretty good with Java and I learned to use the Java containers a lot as they tend to reduce complexity of book keeping while guaranteeing great performance. I intermittently used C++, but I was definitely not as good with it as with Java and it felt cumbersome. I did not know C++ enough to work in it without having to look up every single function and so I quickly reverted back to sticking to Java as much as possible. I then made a sudden transition into cracking and hacking in assembly language, because I felt I was concentrated too much attention on a much too high level language and I needed more experience with how a CPU interacts with memory and whats really going on with the 1's and 0's. I have to admit this was one of the most educational and fun experiences I've had with computers to date. For obviously reasons, I could not use assembly language to code on a daily basis, it was mostly reserved for fun diversions. After learning more about the computer through this experience I then realized that C++ is so much closer to the "level of 1's and 0's" than Java was, but I still felt it to be incredibly obtuse, like a swiss army knife with far too many gizmos to do any one task with elegance. I decided to give plain vanilla C a try, and I quickly fell in love. It was a happy medium between simplicity and enough "micromanagent" to not abstract what is really going on. However, I did miss one thing about Java: the containers. In particular, a simple container (like the stl vector) that expands dynamically in size is incredibly useful, but quite a pain to have to implement in C every time. Hence my code currently looks like almost entirely C with containers from C++ thrown in, the only feature I use from C++. I'd like to know if its consider okay in practice to use just one feature of C++, and ignore the rest in favor of C type code?

    Read the article

  • Representing xml through a single class

    - by Charles
    I am trying to abstract away the difficulties of configuring an application that we use. This application takes a xml configuration file and it can be a bit bothersome to manually edit this file, especially when we are trying to setup some automatic testing scenarios. I am finding that reading xml is nice, pretty easy, you get a network of element nodes that you can just go through and build your structures quite nicely. However I am slowly finding that the reverse is not quite so nice. I want to be able to build a xml configuration file through a single easy to use interface and because xml is composed of a system of nodes I am having a lot of struggle trying to maintain the 'easy' part. Does anyone know of any examples or samples that easily and intuitively build xml files without declaring a bunch of element type classes and expect the user to build the network themselves? For example if my desired xml output is like so <cook version="1.1"> <recipe name="chocolate chip cookie"> <ingredients> <ingredient name="flour" amount="2" units="cups"/> <ingredient name="eggs" amount="2" units="" /> <ingredient name="cooking chocolate" amount="5" units="cups" /> </ingredients> <directions> <direction name="step 1">Preheat oven</direction> <direction name="step 2">Mix flour, egg, and chocolate</direction> <direction name="step 2">bake</direction> </directions> </recipe> <recipe name="hot dog"> ... How would I go about designing a class to build that network of elements and make one easy to use interface for creating recipes? Right now I have a recipe object, an ingredient object, and a direction object. The user must make each one, set the attributes in the class and attach them to the root object which assembles the xml elements and outputs the formatted xml. Its not very pretty and I just know there has to be a better way. I am using python so bonus points for pythonic solutions

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice when coding math class/functions ?

    - by Isaac Clarke
    Introductory note : I voluntarily chose a wide subject. You know that quote about learning a cat to fish, that's it. I don't need an answer to my question, I need an explanation and advice. I know you guys are good at this ;) Hi guys, I'm currently implementing some algorithms into an existing program. Long story short, I created a new class, "Adder". An Adder is a member of another class representing the physical object actually doing the calculus , which calls adder.calc() with its parameters (merely a list of objects to do the maths on). To do these maths, I need some parameters, which do not exist outside of the class (but can be set, see below). They're neither config parameters nor members of other classes. These parameters are D1 and D2, distances, and three arrays of fixed size : alpha, beta, delta. I know some of you are more comfortable reading code than reading text so here you go : class Adder { public: Adder(); virtual Adder::~Adder(); void set( float d1, float d2 ); void set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] ); // Snipped prototypes float calc( List& ... ); // ... inline float get_d1() { return d1_ ;}; inline float get_d2() { return d2_ ;}; private: float d1_; float d2_; int alpha_[N_MAX]; // A #define N_MAX is done elsewhere int beta_[N_MAX]; int delta_[N_MAX]; }; Since this object is used as a member of another class, it is declared in a *.h : private: Adder adder_; By doing that, I couldn't initialize the arrays (alpha/beta/delta) directly in the constructor ( int T[3] = { 1, 2, 3 }; ), without having to iterate throughout the three arrays. I thought of putting them in static const, but I don't think that's the proper way of solving such problems. My second guess was to use the constructor to initialize the arrays Adder::Adder() { int alpha[N_MAX] = { 0, -60, -120, 180, 120, 60 }; int beta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; int delta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 180, 180, 180, 0 }; set( 2.5, 0, alpha, beta, delta ); } void Adder::set( float d1, float d2 ) { if (d1 > 0) d1_ = d1; if (d2 > 0) d2_ = d2; } void Adder::set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] ) { set( d1, d2 ); for (int i = 0; i < N_MAX; ++i) { alpha_[i] = alpha[i]; beta_[i] = beta[i]; delta_[i] = delta[i]; } } My question is : Would it be better to use another function - init() - which would initialize arrays ? Or is there a better way of doing that ? My bonus question is : Did you see some mistakes or bad practice along the way ?

    Read the article

  • small scale web site - global javascript file style/format/pattern - improving maintainability

    - by yaya3
    I frequently create (and inherit) small to medium websites where I have the following sort of code in a single file (normally named global.js or application.js or projectname.js). If functions get big, I normally put them in a seperate file, and call them at the bottom of the file below in the $(document).ready() section. If I have a few functions that are unique to certain pages, I normally have another switch statement for the body class inside the $(document).ready() section. How could I restructure this code to make it more maintainable? Note: I am less interested in the functions innards, more so the structure, and how different types of functions should be dealt with. I've also posted the code here - http://pastie.org/999932 in case it makes it any easier var ProjectNameEnvironment = {}; function someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable () { $('.foo').hide(); $('.bar').click(function(){ $('.foo').show(); }); } function functionThatIsWorthMakingConfigurable(config) { var foo = config.foo || 700; var bar = 200; return foo * bar; } function globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger (tooltip_string) { var tooltipTrigger = $(tooltip_string); tooltipTrigger.tooltip({ showURL: false ... }); } function minorUtilityOneLiner (selector) { $(selector).find('li:even').not('li ul li').addClass('even'); } var Lightbox = {}; Lightbox.setup = function(){ $('li#foo a').attr('href','#alpha'); $('li#bar a').attr('href','#beta'); } Lightbox.init = function (config){ if (typeof $.fn.fancybox =='function') { Lightbox.setup(); var fade_in_speed = config.fade_in_speed || 1000; var frame_height = config.frame_height || 1700; $(config.selector).fancybox({ frameHeight : frame_height, callbackOnShow: function() { var content_to_load = config.content_to_load; ... }, callbackOnClose : function(){ $('body').height($('body').height()); } }); } else { if (ProjectNameEnvironment.debug) { alert('the fancybox plugin has not been loaded'); } } } // ---------- order of execution ----------- $(document).ready(function () { urls = urlConfig(); (function globalFunctions() { $('.tooltip-trigger').each(function(){ globallyRequiredJqueryPluginTrigger(this); }); minorUtilityOneLiner('ul.foo') Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#a-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); Lightbox.init({ selector : 'a#another-lightbox-trigger-js', ... }); })(); if ( $('body').attr('id') == 'home-page' ) { (function homeFunctions() { someFunctionUniqueToTheHomepageNotWorthMakingConfigurable (); })(); } });

    Read the article

  • How strict should I be in the "do the simplest thing that could possible work" while doing TDD

    - by Support - multilanguage SO
    For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything... processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

    Read the article

  • Is there a more correct type for passing in the file path and file name to a method

    - by Rihan Meij
    Hi What I mean by this question is, when you need to store or pass a URL around, using a string is probably a bad practice, and a better approach would be to use a URI type. However it is so easy to make complex things more complex and bloated. So if I am going to be writing to a file on disk, do I pass it a string, as the file name and file path, or is there a better type that will be better suited to the requirement? This code seems to be clunky, and error prone? I would also need to do a whole bit of checking if it is a valid file name, if the string contains data and the list goes on. private void SaveFile(string fileNameAndPath) { //The normal stuff to save the file }

    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 | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >