Search Results

Search found 6690 results on 268 pages for 'worst 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 104/268 | < Previous Page | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >

  • True or False: Good design calls for every table to have a primary key, if nothing else, a running i

    - by Velika
    Consider a grocery store scenario (I'm making this up) where you have FACT records that represent a sale transaction, where the columns of the Fact table include SaleItemFact Table ------------------ CustomerID ProductID Price DistributorID DateOfSale Etc Etc Etc Even if there are duplicates in the table when you consider ALL the keys, I would contend that a surrogate running numeric key (i.e. identity column) should be made up, e.g., TransactionNumber of type Integer. I can see someone arguing that a Fact table might not have a unique key (though I'd invent one and waste the 4 bytes, but how about a dimension table?

    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

  • 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

  • Why are there magic attributes exposed in the Servlet spec?

    - by Brabster
    It's always seemed a little at odds with the principles of Java that the Java Servlet Spec (2.5 version here) includes a set of magic attributes containing info about included resources, namely: javax.servlet.include.request_uri javax.servlet.include.context_path javax.servlet.include.servlet_path javax.servlet.include.path_info javax.servlet.include.query_string It's not even specifically pointed out in the API documentation, only in the spec where it is a must for correct implementation. This approach feels very wrong, an exposed implementation detail that clients will use and depend on. Why is this information exposed in this way?

    Read the article

  • What classes should I map against with NHibernate?

    - by apollodude217
    Currently, we use NHibernate to map business objects to database tables. Said business objects enforce business rules: The set accessors will throw an exception on the spot if the contract for that property is violated. Also, the properties enforce relationships with other objects (sometimes bidirectional!). Well, whenever NHibernate loads an object from the database (e.g. when ISession.Get(id) is called), the set accessors of the mapped properties are used to put the data into the object. What's good is that the middle tier of the application enforces business logic. What's bad is that the database does not. Sometimes crap finds its way into the database. If crap is loaded into the application, it bails (throws an exception). Sometimes it clearly should bail because it cannot do anything, but what if it can continue working? E.g., an admin tool that gathers real-time reports runs a high risk of failing unnecessarily instead of allowing an admin to even fix a (potential) problem. I don't have an example on me right now, but in some instances, letting NHibernate use the "front door" properties that also enforce relationships (especially bidi) leads to bugs. What are the best solutions? Currently, I will, on a per-property basis, create a "back door" just for NHibernate: public virtual int Blah {get {return _Blah;} set {/*enforces BR's*/}} protected virtual int _Blah {get {return blah;} set {blah = value;}} private int blah; I showed the above in C# 2 (no default properties) to demonstrate how this gets us basically 3 layers of, or views, to blah!!! While this certainly works, it does not seem ideal as it requires the BL to provide one (public) interface for the app-at-large, and another (protected) interface for the data access layer. There is an additional problem: To my knowledge, NHibernate does not give you a way to distinguish between the name of the property in the BL and the name of the property in the entity model (i.e. the name you use when you query, e.g. via HQL--whenever you give NHibernate the name (string) of a property). This becomes a problem when, at first, the BR's for some property Blah are no problem, so you refer to it in your O/R mapping... but then later, you have to add some BR's that do become a problem, so then you have to change your O/R mapping to use a new _Blah property, which breaks all existing queries using "Blah" (common problem with programming against strings). Has anyone solved these problems?!

    Read the article

  • Make a Method of the Business Layer secure. best practice / best pattern [.net/c#]

    - by gsharp
    Hi 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 :-) Thanks for you help.

    Read the article

  • How should my team decide between 3-tier and 2-tier architectures?

    - by j0rd4n
    My team is discussing the future direction we take our projects. Half the team believes in a pure 3-tier architecture while the other half favors a 2-tier architecture. Project Assumptions: Enterprise business applications Business logic needed between user and database Data validation necessary Service-oriented (prefer RESTful services) Multi-year maintenance plan Support hundreds of users 3-tier Team Favors: Persistant layer <== Domain layer <== UI layer Service boundary between at least persistant layer and domain layer. Domain layer might have service boundary between it. Translations between each layer (clean DTO separation) Hand roll persistance unless we can find creative yet elegant automation 2-tier Team Favors: Entity Framework + WCF Data Service layer <== UI layer Business logic kept in WCF Data Service interceptors Minimal translation between layers - favor faster coding So that's the high-level argument. What considerations should we take into account? What experiences have you had with either approach?

    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

  • What are the 'big' advantages to have Poco with ORM?

    - by bonefisher
    One advantage that comes to my mind is, if you use Poco classes for Orm mapping, you can easily switch from one ORM to another, if both support Poco. Having an ORM with no Poco support, e.g. mappings are done with attributes like the DataObjects.Net Orm, is not an issue for me, as also with Poco-supported Orms and theirs generated proxy entities, you have to be aware that entities are actually DAO objects bound to some context/session, e.g. serializing is a problem, etc..

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

    Read the article

  • Where to store global variables like file paths in java ?

    - by Jules Olléon
    In my application I use some icons. Where should I store the path of the directory containing those icons ? The icons are used in different classes so it doesn't really make sense to store them in one of those classes in particular. I read that global variables are evil, but is it acceptable to use a class (eg Commons) containing only public static final fields to store this king of data ? What solution is used in professional applications ?

    Read the article

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Decimal rounding strategies in enterprise applications

    - by Sapphire
    Well, I am wondering about a thing with rounding decimals, and storing them in DB. Problem is like this: Let's say we have a customer and a invoice. The invoice has total price of $100.495 (due to some discount percentage which is not integer number), but it is shown as $100.50 (when rounded, just for print on invoice). It is stored in the DB with the price of $100.495, which means that when customer makes a deposit of $100.50 it will have $0.005 extra on the account. If this is rounded, it will appear as $0, but after couple of invoices it would keep accumulating, which would appear wrong (although it actually is not). What is best to do in this case. Store the value of $100.50, or leave everything as-is?

    Read the article

  • Partial class or "chained inheritance"

    - by Charlie boy
    Hi From my understanding partial classes are a bit frowned upon by professional developers, but I've come over a bit of an issue; I have made an implementation of the RichTextBox control that uses user32.dll calls for faster editing of large texts. That results in quite a bit of code. Then I added spellchecking capabilities to the control, this was made in another class inheriting RichTextBox control as well. That also makes up a bit of code. These two functionalities are quite separate but I would like them to be merged so that I can drop one control on my form that has both fast editing capabilities and spellchecking built in. I feel that simply adding the code form one class to the other would result in a too large code file, especially since there are two very distinct areas of functionality, so I seem to need another approach. Now to my question; To merge these two classes should I make the spellchecking RichTextBox inherit from the fast edit one, that in turn inherits RichTextBox? Or should I make the two classes partials of a single class and thus making them more “equal” so to speak? This is more of a question of OO principles and exercise on my part than me trying to reinvent the wheel, I know there are plenty of good text editing controls out there. But this is just a hobby for me and I just want to know how this kind of solution would be managed by a professional. Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • How do I create a safe local development environment?

    - by docgnome
    I'm currently doing web development with another developer on a centralized development server. In the past this has worked alright, as we have two separate projects we are working on and rarely conflict. Now, however, we are adding a third (possible) developer into the mix. This is clearly going to create problems with other developers changes affecting my work and vice versa. To solve this problem, I'm thinking the best solution would be to create a virtual machine to distribute between the developers for local use. The problem I have is when it comes to the database. Given that we all develop on laptops, simply keeping a local copy of the live data is plain stupid. I've considered sanitizing the data, but I can't really figure out how to replace the real data, with data that would be representative of what people actually enter with out repeating the same information over and over again, e.g. everyone's address becomes 123 Testing Lane, Test Town, WA, 99999 or something. Is this really something to be concerned about? Are there tools to help with this sort of thing? I'm using MySQL. Ideally, if I sanitized the db it should be done from a script that I can run regularly. If I do this I'd also need a way to reduce the size of the db itself. (I figure I could select all the records created after x and whack them and all the records in corresponding tables out so that isn't really a big deal.) The second solution I've thought of is to encrypt the hard drive of the vm, but I'm unsure of how practical this is in terms of speed and also in the event of a lost/stolen laptop. If I do this, should the vm hard drive file itself be encrypted or should it be encrypted in the vm? (I'm assuming the latter as it would be portable and doesn't require the devs to have any sort of encryption capability on their OS of choice.) The third is to create a copy of the database for each developer on our development server that they are then responsible to keep the schema in sync with the canonical db by means of migration scripts or what have you. This solution seems to be the simplest but doesn't really scale as more developers are added. How do you deal with this problem?

    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

  • 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

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 | 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111  | Next Page >