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 >

  • What are some good usability guidelines an average developer should follow?

    - by Allain Lalonde
    I'm not a usability specialist, and I really don't care to be one. I just want a small set of rules of thumb that I can follow while coding my User Interfaces so that my product has decent usability. At first I thought that this question would be easy to answer "Use your common sense", but if it's so common among us developers we wouldn't, as a group, have a reputation for our horrible interfaces. Any Suggestions?

    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

  • Are regexes really maintainable?

    - by Rich Bradshaw
    Any code I've seen that uses Regexes tends to use them as a black box: Put in string Magic Regex Get out string This doesn't seem a particularly good idea to use in production code, as even a small change can often result in a completely different regex. Apart from cases where the standard is permanent and unchanging, are regexes the way to do things, or is it better to try different methods?

    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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • [Design Question] When to open a link on a new window?

    - by Ian
    Hi All, When designing a web application/web site, is there an accepted practice on when to open a link on a new window? Currently, if the site being linked to is outside the domain (say Google.com), I am always launching it on a new window. If the page being linked is within the same domain, I open it on the current active window. I've read somewhere the opening links on a new window explicitly is being frowned upon. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • I don't like Python functions that take two or more iterables. Is it a good idea?

    - by Xavier Ho
    This question came from looking at this question on Stackoverflow. def fringe8((px, py), (x1, y1, x2, y2)): Personally, it's been one of my pet peeves to see a function that takes two arguments with fixed-number iterables (like a tuple) or two or more dictionaries (Like in the Shotgun API). It's just hard to use, because of all the verbosity and double-bracketed enclosures. Wouldn't this be better: >>> class Point(object): ... def __init__(self, x, y): ... self.x = x ... self.y = y ... >>> class Rect(object): ... def __init__(self, x1, y1, x2, y2): ... self.x1 = x1 ... self.y1 = y1 ... self.x2 = x2 ... self.y2 = y2 ... >>> def fringe8(point, rect): ... # ... ... >>> >>> point = Point(2, 2) >>> rect = Rect(1, 1, 3, 3) >>> >>> fringe8(point, rect) Is there a situation where taking two or more iterable arguments is justified? Obviously the standard itertools Python library needs that, but I can't see it being pretty in maintainable, flexible code design.

    Read the article

  • In .NET which loop runs faster for or foreach

    - by Binoj Antony
    In c#/VB.NET/.NET which loop runs faster for or foreach? Ever since I read that for loop works faster than foreach a long time ago I assumed it stood true for all collections, generic collection all arrays etc. I scoured google and found few articles but most of them are inconclusive (read comments on the articles) and open ended. What would be ideal is to have each scenarios listed and the best solution for the same e.g: (just example of how it should be) for iterating an array of 1000+ strings - for is better than foreach for iterating over IList (non generic) strings - foreach is better than for Few references found on the web for the same: Original grand old article by Emmanuel Schanzer CodeProject FOREACH Vs. FOR Blog - To foreach or not to foreach that is the question asp.net forum - NET 1.1 C# for vs foreach [Edit] Apart from the readability aspect of it I am really interested in facts and figures, there are applications where the last mile of performance optimization squeezed do matter.

    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

  • Giving the script tag an ID

    - by The Code Pimp
    Hi guys, i came across a scenario where giving a <script> element an "ID" would solve a problem easily. However, after reading about the script tag at w3schools and quirksmode, it seems doing so could have some unforeseen consequences. Has anyone come across any of these issues with modern browsers such as Chrome, Safari, FF3 up and IE 7 up? Thanks

    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

  • Should I make sure arguments aren't null before using them in a function.

    - by Nathan W
    The title may not really explain what I'm really trying to get at, couldn't really think of a way to describe what I mean. I was wondering if it is good practice to check the arguments that a function accepts for nulls or empty before using them. I have this function which just wraps some hash creation like so. Public Shared Function GenerateHash(ByVal FilePath As IO.FileInfo) As String If (FilePath Is Nothing) Then Throw New ArgumentNullException("FilePath") End If Dim _sha As New Security.Cryptography.MD5CryptoServiceProvider Dim _Hash = Convert.ToBase64String(_sha.ComputeHash(New IO.FileStream(FilePath.FullName, IO.FileMode.Open, IO.FileAccess.Read))) Return _Hash End Function As you can see I just takes a IO.Fileinfo as an argument, at the start of the function I am checking to make sure that it is not nothing. I'm wondering is this good practice or should I just let it get to the actual hasher and then throw the exception because it is null.? Thanks.

    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

  • How to test a site rigorously?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, I recently created a big portal site. It's time for putting it to test. How do you guys test a site rigorously? What are the ways and tools for that? Can we sort of mimic hundreds of virtual users visiting the site to see its load handling? The test should be for both security and speed Thanks in advance.

    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

  • 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

  • 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 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

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 >