Search Results

Search found 16838 results on 674 pages for 'writing patterns dita cms'.

Page 103/674 | < Previous Page | 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110  | Next Page >

  • Risking the exception anti-pattern.. with some modifications

    - by Sridhar Iyer
    Lets say that I have a library which runs 24x7 on certain machines. Even if the code is rock solid, a hardware fault can sooner or later trigger an exception. I would like to have some sort of failsafe in position for events like this. One approach would be to write wrapper functions that encapsulate each api a: returnCode=DEFAULT; try { returnCode=libraryAPI1(); } catch(...) { returnCode=BAD; } return returnCode; The caller of the library then restarts the whole thread, reinitializes the module if the returnCode is bad. Things CAN go horribly wrong. E.g. if the try block(or libraryAPI1()) had: func1(); char *x=malloc(1000); func2(); if func2() throws an exception, x will never be freed. On a similar vein, file corruption is a possible outcome. Could you please tell me what other things can possibly go wrong in this scenario?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for Fat Client - Thin Client to use Common code?

    - by kurozakura
    Windows-based client application and web-client application(consuming the same code which windows-client uses) what is the preferable pattern for this scenario? Is it ok to have the code in the common place where both the projects and refer it as dll i.e one which is a windows app and other which is going consume the same code which windows client will be exposing.

    Read the article

  • PHP: Best solution for links breaking in a mod_rewrite app

    - by psil
    I'm using mod rewrite to redirect all requests targeting non-existent files/directories to index.php?url=* This is surely the most common thing you do with mod_rewrite yet I have a problem: Naturally, if the page url is "mydomain.com/blog/view/1", the browser will look for images, stylesheets and relative links in the "virtual" directory "mydomain.com/blog/view/". Problem 1: Is using the base tag the best solution? I see that none of the PHP frameworks out there use the base tag, though. I'm currently having a regex replace all the relative links to point to the right path before output. Is that "okay"? Problem 2: It is possible that the server doesn't support mod_rewrite. However, all public files like images, stylesheets and the requests collector index.php are located in the directory /myapp/public. Normally mod_rewrite points all request to /public so it seems as if public was actually the root directory too all users. However if there is no mod_rewrite, I then have to point the users to /public from the root directory with a header() call. That means, however that all links are broken again because suddenly all images, etc. have to be called via /public/myimage.jpg Additional info: When there is no mod_rewrite the above request would look like this: mydomain.com/public/index.php/blog/view/1 What would be the best solutions for both problems?

    Read the article

  • asp.mvc model design

    - by Radu D
    Hi, I am pretty new to MVC and I am looking for a way to design my models. I have the MVC web site project and another class library that takes care of data access and constructing the business objects. If I have in that assembly a class named Project that is a business object and I need to display all projects in a view ... should I make another model class Project? In this case the classes will be identical. Do I gain something from doing a new model class? I don't like having in views references to objects from another dll ... but i don't like duplicating the code neither. Did you encounter the same problem?

    Read the article

  • Dependency Injection: I don't get where to start!

    - by Andy
    I have several articles about Dependency Injection, and I can see the benefits, especially when it comes to unit testing. The units can me loosely coupled, and mocking of dependencies can be made. The trouble is - I just don't get where to start. Consider this snippet below of (much edited for the purpose of this post) code that I have. I am instantiating a Plc object from the main form, and passing in a communications mode via the Connect method. In it's present form it becomes hard to test, because I can't isolate the Plc from the CommsChannel to unit test it. (Can I?) The class depends on using a CommsChannel object, but I am only passing in a mode that is used to create this channel within the Plc itself. To use dependancy injection, I should really pass in an already created CommsChannel (via an 'ICommsChannel' interface perhaps) to the Connect method, or maybe via the Plc constructor. Is that right? But then that would mean creating the CommsChannel in my main form first, and this doesn't seem right either, because it feels like everything will come back to the base layer of the main form, where everything begins. Somehow it feels like I am missing a crucial piece of the puzzle. Where do you start? You have to create an instance of something somewhere, but I'm struggling to understand where that should be. public class Plc() { public bool Connect(CommsMode commsMode) { bool success = false; // Create new comms channel. this._commsChannel = this.GetCommsChannel(commsMode); // Attempt connection success = this._commsChannel.Connect(); return this._connected; } private CommsChannel GetCommsChannel(CommsMode mode) { CommsChannel channel; switch (mode) { case CommsMode.RS232: channel = new SerialCommsChannel( SerialCommsSettings.Default.ComPort, SerialCommsSettings.Default.BaudRate, SerialCommsSettings.Default.DataBits, SerialCommsSettings.Default.Parity, SerialCommsSettings.Default.StopBits); break; case CommsMode.Tcp: channel = new TcpCommsChannel( TCPCommsSettings.Default.IP_Address, TCPCommsSettings.Default.Port); break; default: // Throw unknown comms channel exception. } return channel; } }

    Read the article

  • Lackadaisical One-to-One between Char and Byte Streams

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I expected to have a one-to-one correspondence between the character streams and byte streams in terms of how the classes are organized in their hierarchy. FilterReader and FilterWriter (character streams) correspond back to FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream (byte stream) classes. However I noticed few changes as - BufferedInputStream extends FilterInputStream, but BufferedReader does NOT extend FilterReader. BufferedOutputStream and PrintStream both extend FilterOutputStream, but BufferedWriter and PrintWriter does NOT extend FilterWriter. FilterInputStream and FilterOutputStream are not abstract classes, but FilterReader and FilterWriter are. I am not sure if I am being too paranoid to point out such differences, but was just curious to know if there was design reasoning behind such decision.

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to dynamic cast "this" as a return value?

    - by Panayiotis Karabassis
    This is more of a design question. I have a template class, and I want to add extra methods to it depending on the template type. To practice the DRY principle, I have come up with this pattern (definitions intentionally omitted): template <class T> class BaseVector: public boost::array<T, 3> { protected: BaseVector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z); public: bool operator == (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator + (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator - (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> &operator += (const Vector<T> &other) { (*this)[0] += other[0]; (*this)[1] += other[1]; (*this)[2] += other[2]; return *dynamic_cast<Vector<T> * const>(this); } } template <class T> class Vector : public BaseVector<T> { public: Vector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z) : BaseVector<T>(x, y, z) { } }; template <> class Vector<double> : public BaseVector<double> { public: Vector<double>(const double x, const double y, const double z); Vector<double>(const Vector<int> &other); double norm() const; }; I intend BaseVector to be nothing more than an implementation detail. This works, but I am concerned about operator+=. My question is: is the dynamic cast of the this pointer a code smell? Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do (avoid code duplication, and unnecessary casts in the user code)? Or am I safe since, the BaseVector constructor is private?

    Read the article

  • How to create new account using servlets

    - by Alvin
    I want to know how can I create new account using servlets in post method? I'm currently following MVC design pattern, and I want to know if I pass the required data to register new account from JSP page, then how can I get that data in post method? As request.getParameter() method returning me null. How can I know that post method is calling to create new account? How can I pass all the relevant user information from servlets to model class for registering data to the database table?

    Read the article

  • Writing user stories for internal technical tasks

    - by John Nolan
    I am attempting to manage my projects a little better so I am looking at attempting to apply some of (eventually all) the features of scrum. Looking at user stories specifically the high level format seems to be: As a User I can Feature Description or Artifact is Doing Something How would I write "Upgrade the Database"? Is it simply Upgrade the Database? I think I am being thrown off as there is no specific actor/customer and that the customer is the IT department.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC: post-redirect-get pattern, with only two overloaded action methods

    - by Rafi
    Is it possible to implement post-redirect-get pattern, with two overloaded action methods(One for GET action and the other for POST action) in ASP.NET MVC. In all of the MVC post-redirect-get pattern samples, I have seen three different action methods for the post-redirect-get process, each having different names. Is this really required? For Eg:(Does the code shown below, follows Post-Redirect-Get pattern?) public class SalaryTransferController : Controller { // // GET: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpGet] public ActionResult Index(int id) { SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm = new SalaryTransferIndexViewModel(id) { SelectedDivision = DivisionEnum.Contracting }; //Do some processing here return View(vm); } // // POST: /SalaryTransfer/ [HttpPost] public ActionResult Index(SalaryTransferIndexViewModel vm) { bool validationsuccess = false; //validate if (validationsuccess) return RedirectToAction("Index", new {id=1234 }); else return View(vm); } } Thank you for your responses.

    Read the article

  • MSTest/NUnit Writing BDD style "Given, When, Then" tests

    - by Charlie
    I have been using MSpec to write my unit tests and really prefer the BDD style, I think it's a lot more readable. I'm now using Silverlight which MSpec doesn't support so I'm having to use MSTest but would still like to maintain a BDD style so am trying to work out a way to do this. Just to explain what I'm trying to acheive, here's how I'd write an MSpec test [Subject(typeof(Calculator))] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { Establish context = () => this.Calculator = new Calculator(); Because I_add_2_and_4 = () => this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); It should_display_6 = () => this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } public class with_calculator { protected static Calculator; } So with MSTest I would try to write the test like this (although you can see it won't work because I've put in 2 TestInitialize attributes, but you get what I'm trying to do..) [TestClass] public class when_I_add_two_numbers : with_calculator { [TestInitialize] public void GivenIHaveACalculator() { this.Calculator = new Calculator(); } [TestInitialize] public void WhenIAdd2And4() { this.Calculator.Add(2).Add(4); } [TestMethod] public void ThenItShouldDisplay6() { this.Calculator.Result.ShouldEqual(6); } } public class with_calculator { protected Calculator Calculator {get;set;} } Can anyone come up with some more elegant suggestions to write tests in this way with MSTest? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Which is the better C# class design for dealing with read+write versus readonly

    - by DanM
    I'm contemplating two different class designs for handling a situation where some repositories are read-only while others are read-write. (I don't foresee any need to a write-only repository.) Class Design 1 -- provide all functionality in a base class, then expose applicable functionality publicly in sub classes public abstract class RepositoryBase { protected virtual void SelectBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void InsertBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void UpdateBase() { // implementation... } protected virtual void DeleteBase() { // implementation... } } public class ReadOnlyRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } } public class ReadWriteRepository : RepositoryBase { public void Select() { SelectBase(); } public void Insert() { InsertBase(); } public void Update() { UpdateBase(); } public void Delete() { DeleteBase(); } } Class Design 2 - read-write class inherits from read-only class public class ReadOnlyRepository { public void Select() { // implementation... } } public class ReadWriteRepository : ReadOnlyRepository { public void Insert() { // implementation... } public void Update() { // implementation... } public void Delete() { // implementation... } } Is one of these designs clearly stronger than the other? If so, which one and why? P.S. If this sounds like a homework question, it's not, but feel free to use it as one if you want :)

    Read the article

  • Singleton Pattern combine with a Decorator

    - by Mike
    Attached is a classic Decorator pattern. My question is how would you modify the below code so that you can wrap zero or one of each topping on to the Pizza Right now I can have a Pepporini - Sausage -- Pepporini -- Pizza class driving the total cost up to $10, charging twice for Pepporini. I don't think I want to use the Chain of Responsibility pattern as order does not matter and not all toppings are used? Thank you namespace PizzaDecorator { public interface IPizza { double CalculateCost(); } public class Pizza: IPizza { public Pizza() { } public double CalculateCost() { return 8.00; } } public abstract class Topping : IPizza { protected IPizza _pizzaItem; public Topping(IPizza pizzaItem) { this._pizzaItem = pizzaItem; } public abstract double CalculateCost(); } public class Pepporini : Topping { public Pepporini(IPizza pizzaItem) : base(pizzaItem) { } public override double CalculateCost() { return this._pizzaItem.CalculateCost() + 0.50; } } public class Sausage : Topping { public Sausage(IPizza pizzaItem) : base(pizzaItem) { } public override double CalculateCost() { return this._pizzaItem.CalculateCost() + 1.00; } } public class Onions : Topping { public Onions(IPizza pizzaItem) : base(pizzaItem) { } public override double CalculateCost() { return this._pizzaItem.CalculateCost() + .25; } } }

    Read the article

  • how can i use switch statement on type-safe enum pattern

    - by Fer
    I found a goodlooking example about implementation enums in a different way. That is called type-safe enum pattern i think. I started using it but i realized that i can not use it in a switch statement. My implementation looks like the following: public sealed class MyState { private readonly string m_Name; private readonly int m_Value; public static readonly MyState PASSED= new MyState(1, "OK"); public static readonly MyState FAILED= new MyState(2, "ERROR"); private MyState(int value, string name) { m_Name = name; m_Value = value; } public override string ToString() { return m_Name; } public int GetIntValue() { return m_Value; } } What can i add to my class in order to be able to use this pattern in switch statements in C#? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Problem implementing Interceptor pattern

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? Update: I came across Spring.NET. I've heard of it before, but never really looked into it. It sounds like it has a lot of great features that would be very useful for what I'm trying to do. Does anyone have any experience with Spring.NET? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • OutputStream with ByteArrayOutputStream not writing

    - by Yonatan
    Hey again Internet ! So i'm trying to write out an object to a ByteArray, but for some reason it's not writting anything, which i see by the fact that the return value is 0, and that by the fact that reading it results in an exception. BAoutput = new ByteArrayOutputStream(); Oout = new ObjectOutputStream(BAoutput); Oout.writeObject(receiver); where receiver is an object i get through a parameter. and the exceptions are always the same: at java.io.ObjectInputStream$BlockDataInputStream.peekByte(Unknown Source) at java.io.ObjectInputStream.readObject0(Unknown Source) at java.io.ObjectInputStream.readObject(Unknown Source) Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Writing white space to CSV fields in Python?

    - by matt
    When I try to write a field that includes whitespace in it, it gets split into multiple fields on the space. What's causing this? It's driving me insane. Thanks data = open("file.csv", "wb") w = csv.writer(data) w.writerow(['word1', 'word2']) w.writerow(['word 1', 'word2']) data.close() I'll get 2 fields(word1,word2) for first example and 3(word,1,word2) for the second.

    Read the article

  • Is extending a singleton class wrong?

    - by Anwar Shaikh
    I am creating a logger for an application. I am using a third party logger library. In which logger is implemented as singleton. I extended that logger class because I want to add some more static functions. In these static functions I internally use the instance (which is single) of Logger(which i inherited). I neither creates instance of MyLogger nor re-implemented the getInstance() method of super class. But I am still getting warnings like destructor of MyLogger can not be created as parent class (Loggger) destructor is not accessible. I want to know, I am I doing something wrong? Inheriting the singleton is wrong or should be avoided??

    Read the article

  • Writing an image to ResponseBase.OutputStream does not work anymore with ASP.NET MVC2 RC2

    - by labilbe
    The following code worked nice on ASP.NET MVC1 public class ImageResult : ActionResult { public Image Image { get; set; } public override void ExecuteResult(ControllerContext context) { if (Image == null) { return; } HttpResponseBase response = context.HttpContext.Response; response.ContentType = "image/png"; Image.Save(response.OutputStream, ImageFormat.Png); } } I spent some time searching answers but I didn't find anyone. The error thrown is OutputStream is not available when a custom TextWriter is used.

    Read the article

  • Generalized plugable caching pattern?

    - by BCS
    Given that it's one of the hard things in computer science, does anyone know of a way to set up a plugable caching strategy? What I'm thinking of would allow me to write a program with minimal thought as to what needs to be cached (e.i. use some sort of boiler-plate, low/no cost pattern that compiles away to nothing anywhere I might want caching) and then when things are further along and I know where I need caching I can add it in without making invasive code changes. As an idea to the kind of solution I'm looking for; I'm working with the D programing language (but halfway sane C++ would be fine) and I like template.

    Read the article

  • Objective-c design advice for use of different data sources, swapping between test and live

    - by user200341
    I'm in the process of designing an application that is part of a larger piece of work, depending on other people to build an API that the app can make use of to retrieve data. While I was thinking about how to setup this project and design the architecture around it, something occurred to me, and I'm sure many people have been in similar situations. Since my work is depending on other people to complete their tasks, and a test server, this slows work down at my end. So the question is: What's the best practice for creating test repositories and classes, implementing them, and not having to depend on altering several places in the code to swap between the test classes and the actual repositories / proper api calls. Contemplate the following scenario: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [[GetDataFromApiCommand alloc]init]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; Once the data is available via the API, "GetDataFromApiCommand" could use the actual API, but until then a set of mock data could be returned upon the call of [getDataCommand getData] There might be multiple instances of this, in various places in the code, so replacing all of them wherever they are, is a slow and painful process which inevitably leads to one or two being overlooked. In strongly typed languages we could use dependency injection and just alter one place. In objective-c a factory pattern could be implemented, but is that the best route to go for this? GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [GetDataFromApiCommandFactory buildGetDataFromApiCommand]; getDataCommand.delegate = self; [getDataCommand getData]; What is the best practices to achieve this result? Since this would be most useful, even if you have the actual API available, to run tests, or work off-line, the ApiCommands would not necessarily have to be replaced permanently, but the option to select "Do I want to use TestApiCommand or ApiCommand". It is more interesting to have the option to switch between: All commands are test and All command use the live API, rather than selecting them one by one, however that would also be useful to do for testing one or two actual API commands, mixing them with test data. EDIT The way I have chosen to go with this is to use the factory pattern. I set up the factory as follows: @implementation ApiCommandFactory + (ApiCommand *)newApiCommand { // return [[ApiCommand alloc]init]; return [[ApiCommandMock alloc]init]; } @end And anywhere I want to use the ApiCommand class: GetDataFromApiCommand *getDataCommand = [ApiCommandFactory newApiCommand]; When the actual API call is required, the comments can be removed and the mock can be commented out. Using new in the message name implies that who ever uses the factory to get an object, is responsible for releasing it (since we want to avoid autorelease on the iPhone). If additional parameters are required, the factory needs to take these into consideration i.e: [ApiCommandFactory newSecondApiCommand:@"param1"]; This will work quite well with repositories as well.

    Read the article

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