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 103/237 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • In ASP.NET MVC Should A Form Post To Itself Or Another Action?

    - by Sohnee
    Which of these two scenario's is best practice in ASP.NET MVC? 1 Post to self In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm) { ... } And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Edit(EditModel model) 2 Post from Edit to Save In the view you use using (Html.BeginForm("Save", "ControllerName")) { And in the controller you have [HttpGet] public ActionResult Edit(int id) [HttpPost] public ActionResult Save(EditModel model) Summary I can see the benefits of each of these, the former gives you a more restful style, with the same address being used in conjunction with the correct HTTP verb (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE and so on). The latter has a URL schema that makes each address very specific. Which is the correct way to do this?

    Read the article

  • C++ Matrix class hierachy

    - by bpw1621
    Should a matrix software library have a root class (e.g., MatrixBase) from which more specialized (or more constrained) matrix classes (e.g., SparseMatrix, UpperTriangluarMatrix, etc.) derive? If so, should the derived classes be derived publicly/protectively/privately? If not, should they be composed with a implementation class encapsulating common functionality and be otherwise unrelated? Something else? I was having a conversation about this with a software developer colleague (I am not per se) who mentioned that it is a common programming design mistake to derive a more restricted class from a more general one (e.g., he used the example of how it was not a good idea to derive a Circle class from an Ellipse class as similar to the matrix design issue) even when it is true that a SparseMatrix "IS A" MatrixBase. The interface presented by both the base and derived classes should be the same for basic operations; for specialized operations, a derived class would have additional functionality that might not be possible to implement for an arbitrary MatrixBase object. For example, we can compute the cholesky decomposition only for a PositiveDefiniteMatrix class object; however, multiplication by a scalar should work the same way for both the base and derived classes. Also, even if the underlying data storage implementation differs the operator()(int,int) should work as expected for any type of matrix class. I have started looking at a few open-source matrix libraries and it appears like this is kind of a mixed bag (or maybe I'm looking at a mixed bag of libraries). I am planning on helping out with a refactoring of a math library where this has been a point of contention and I'd like to have opinions (that is unless there really is an objective right answer to this question) as to what design philosophy would be best and what are the pros and cons to any reasonable approach.

    Read the article

  • Is this 2D array initialization a bad idea?

    - by Brendan Long
    I have something I need a 2D array for, but for better cache performance, I'd rather have it actually be a normal array. Here's the idea I had but I don't know if it's a terrible idea: const int XWIDTH = 10, YWIDTH = 10; int main(){ int * tempInts = new int[XWIDTH * YWIDTH]; int ** ints = new int*[XWIDTH]; for(int i=0; i<XWIDTH; i++){ ints[i] = &tempInts[i*YWIDTH]; } // do things with ints delete[] ints[0]; delete[] ints; return 0; } So the idea is that instead of newing a bunch of arrays (and having them placed in different places in memory), I just point to an array I made all at once. The reason for the delete[] (int*) ints; is because I'm actually doing this in a class and it would save [trivial amounts of] memory to not save the original pointer. Just wondering if there's any reasons this is a horrible idea. Or if there's an easier/better way. The goal is to be able to access the array as ints[x][y] rather than ints[x*YWIDTH+y].

    Read the article

  • How should I architect JasperReports with a PHP front+backend system

    - by Itay Moav
    Our system is written completely in PHP. For various business reasons (which are a given) I need to build the reports of the system using JasperReports. What architecture should I use? Should I put the Jasper as a stand alone server (if possible) and let the php query against it, should I have it generate the reports with a cron, and then let the PHP scoop up the files and send them to the web client/browser...

    Read the article

  • Unit testing huge applications - Proven methodologies?

    - by NLV
    Hello members I've been working in windows forms applications and ASP.Net applications for the past 10 months. I've always wondered how to perform proper unit testing on the complete application in a robust manner covering all the scenarios. I've the following questions regarding them - What are the standard mechanisms in performing unit testing and writing test cases? Does the methodologies change based on the application nature such as Windows Forms, Web applications etc? What is the best approach to make sure we cover all the scenarios? Any popular books on this? Popular tools for performing unit testing?

    Read the article

  • Should HTTP POST be discouraged?

    - by Tomas Sedovic
    Quoting from the CouchDB documentation: It is recommended that you avoid POST when possible, because proxies and other network intermediaries will occasionally resend POST requests, which can result in duplicate document creation. To my understanding, this should not be happening on the protocol level (a confused user armed with a doubleclick is a completely different story). What is the best course of action, then? Should we really try to avoid POST requests and replace them by PUT? I don't like that as they convey a different meaning. Should we anticipate this and protect the requests by unique IDs where we want to avoid accidental duplication? I don't like that either: it complicates the code and prevents situations where multiple identical posts may be desired.

    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

  • 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 do I create a new AnyType[] array?

    - by cb
    Which is the best practice in this situation? I would like an un-initialized array of the same type and length as the original. public static <AnyType extends Comparable<? super AnyType>> void someFunction(AnyType[] someArray) { AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Comparable[someArray.length]; ...or... AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Object[someArray.length]; ...some other code... } Thanks, CB

    Read the article

  • The Java interface doesn't declare any exception. How to manage checked exception of the implementat

    - by Frór
    Let's say I have the following Java interface that I may not modify: public interface MyInterface { public void doSomething(); } And now the class implementing it is like this: class MyImplementation implements MyInterface { public void doSomething() { try { // read file } catch (IOException e) { // what to do? } } } I can't recover from not reading the file. A subclass of RuntimeException can clearly help me, but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do: the problem is that that exception would then not be documented in the class and a user of the class would possibly get that exception an know nothing about solving this. What can I do?

    Read the article

  • Atomic operations on several transactionless external systems

    - by simendsjo
    Say you have an application connecting 3 different external systems. You need to update something in all 3. In case of a failure, you need to roll back the operations. This is not a hard thing to implement, but say operation 3 fails, and when rolling back, the rollback for operation 1 fails! Now the first external system is in an invalid state... I'm thinking a possible solution is to shut down the application and forcing a manual fix of the external system, but then again... It might already have used this information (and perhaps that's why it failed), or we might not have sufficient access. Or it might not even be a good way to rollback the action! Are there some good ways of handling such cases? EDIT: Some application details.. It's a multi user web application. Most of the work is done with scheduled jobs (through Quartz.Net), so most operations is run in it's own thread. Some user actions should trigger jobs that update several systems though. The external systems are somewhat unstable. I Was thinking of changing the application to use the Command and Unit Of Work pattern

    Read the article

  • Does it ever make sense to make a fundamental (non-pointer) parameter const?

    - by Scott Smith
    I recently had an exchange with another C++ developer about the following use of const: void Foo(const int bar); He felt that using const in this way was good practice. I argued that it does nothing for the caller of the function (since a copy of the argument was going to be passed, there is no additional guarantee of safety with regard to overwrite). In addition, doing this prevents the implementer of Foo from modifying their private copy of the argument. So, it both mandates and advertises an implementation detail. Not the end of the world, but certainly not something to be recommended as good practice. I'm curious as to what others think on this issue. Edit: OK, I didn't realize that const-ness of the arguments didn't factor into the signature of the function. So, it is possible to mark the arguments as const in the implementation (.cpp), and not in the header (.h) - and the compiler is fine with that. That being the case, I guess the policy should be the same for making local variables const. One could make the argument that having different looking signatures in the header and source file would confuse others (as it would have confused me). While I try to follow the Principle of Least Astonishment with whatever I write, I guess it's reasonable to expect developers to recognize this as legal and useful.

    Read the article

  • how to minimize application downtime when updating database and application ORM

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Is "for(;;)" faster than "while (TRUE)"? If not, why do people use it?

    - by Chris Cooper
    for (;;) { //Something to be done repeatedly } I have seen this sort of thing used a lot, but I think it is rather strange... Wouldn't it be much clearer to say while (TRUE), or something along those lines? I'm guessing that (as is the reason for many-a-programmer to resort to cryptic code) this is a tiny margin faster? Why, and is it REALLY worth it? If so, why not just define it this way: #DEFINE while(TRUE) for(;;)

    Read the article

  • Database Structure for CakePHP Models

    - by Michael T. Smith
    We're building a data tracking web app using CakePHP, and I'm having some issues getting the database structure right. We have Companies that haveMany Sites. Sites haveMany DataSamples. Tags haveAndBelongToMany Sites. That is all set up fine. The problem is "ranking" the sites within tags. We need to store it in the database as an archive. I created a Rank model that is setup like this: rank ( id (int), sample_id (int), tag_id (int), site_id (int), rank (int), total_rows) ) So, the question is, how do I create the associations for tag, site and sample to rank? I originally set them as haveMany. But the returned structures don't get me where I'd like to be. It looks like: [Site] => Array ( [Sample] = Array(), [Tag] = Array() ) When I'm really looking for: [Site] => Array ( [Tag] = Array ( [Sample] => Array ( [Rank] => Array ( ...data... ) ) ) ) I think that I may not be structuring the database properly; so if I need to update please let me know. Otherwise, how do I write a find query that gets me where I need to be? Thanks! Thoughts? Need more details? Just ask!

    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

  • Best way to store configuration settings outside of web.config

    - by Wil
    I'm starting to consider creating a class library that I want to make generic so others can use it. While planning it out, I came to thinking about the various configuration settings that I would need. Since the idea is to make it open/shared, I wanted to make things as easy on the end user as possible. What's the best way to setup configuration settings without making use of web.config/app.config?

    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

  • Prims vs Polys: what are the pros and cons of each?

    - by Richard Inglis
    I've noticed that most 3d gaming/rendering environments represent solids as a mesh of (usually triangular) 3d polygons. However some examples, such as Second Life, or PovRay use solids built from a set of 3d primitives (cube, sphere, cone, torus etc) on which various operations can be performed to create more complex shapes. So my question is: why choose one method over the other for representing 3d data? I can see there might be benefits for complex ray-tracing operations to be able to describe a surface as a single mathematical function (like PovRay does), but SL surely isn't attempting anything so ambitious with their rendering engine. Equally, I can imagine it might be more bandwidth-efficient to serve descriptions of generalised solids instead of arbitrary meshes, but is it really worth the downside that SL suffers from (ie modelling stuff is really hard, and usually the results are ugly) - was this just a bad decision made early in SL's development that they're now stuck with? Or is it an artefact of what's easiest to implement in OpenGL?

    Read the article

  • PHP: Where to place return 'false' value?

    - by Mike
    Is one of the following functions better than the other, in terms of where to place the 'return false' statement? Function #1: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } return false; } Function #2: function equalToTwo($a, $b) { $c = $a + $b; if($c == 2) { return true; } else { return false; } } Thanks!

    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 | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >