Search Results

Search found 17921 results on 717 pages for 'cocoa design patterns'.

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 108/717 | < Previous Page | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >

  • Which things instantly ring alarm bells when looking at code? [closed]

    - by FinnNk
    I attended a software craftsmanship event a couple of weeks ago and one of the comments made was "I'm sure we all recognize bad code when we see it" and everyone nodded sagely without further discussion. This sort of thing always worries me as there's that truism that everyone thinks they're an above average driver. Although I think I can recognize bad code I'd love to learn more about what other people consider to be code smells as it's rarely discussed in detail on people's blogs and only in a handful of books. In particular I think it'd be interesting to hear about anything that's a code smell in one language but not another. I'll start off with an easy one: Code in source control that has a high proportion of commented out code - why is it there? was it meant to be deleted? is it a half finished piece of work? maybe it shouldn't have been commented out and was only done when someone was testing something out? Personally I find this sort of thing really annoying even if it's just the odd line here and there, but when you see large blocks interspersed with the rest of the code it's totally unacceptable. It's also usually an indication that the rest of the code is likely to be of dubious quality as well.

    Read the article

  • doing a full permutation search and replace on a string

    - by user73307
    I'm writing an app that does something like a custom number (licence) place generator tool where if I ask for the plate "robin" it will suggest I try: r0bin rob1n r0b1n Are there any published algorithms which can do this? It has to be able to handle replacing single letters with multiples, e.g. m with rn and vise-versa and not fall over if it replaces an i with an l then comes to check the l and replaces it back to an i. The list of what gets swapped with what is going to be user input but I'm not expecting a huge list, possibly 10 pairs at most. I'll be implementing this in Ruby or Python but I should be able to convert code from any other language.

    Read the article

  • Violation of the DRY Principle

    - by Onorio Catenacci
    I am sure there's a name for this anti-pattern somewhere; however I am not familiar enough with the anti-pattern literature to know it. Consider the following scenario: or0 is a member function in a class. For better or worse, it's heavily dependent on class member variables. Programmer A comes along and needs functionality like or0 but rather than calling or0, Programmer A copies and renames the entire class. I'm guessing that she doesn't call or0 because, as I say, it's heavily dependent on member variables for its functionality. Or maybe she's a junior programmer and doesn't know how to call it from other code. So now we've got or0 and c0 (c for copy). I can't completely fault Programmer A for this approach--we all get under tight deadlines and we hack code to get work done. Several programmers maintain or0 so it's now version orN. c0 is now version cN. Unfortunately most of the programmers that maintained the class containing or0 seemed to be completely unaware of c0--which is one of the strongest arguments I can think of for the wisdom of the DRY principle. And there may also have been independent maintainance of the code in c. Either way it appears that or0 and c0 were maintained independent of each other. And, joy and happiness, an error is occurring in cN that does not occur in orN. So I have a few questions: 1.) Is there a name for this anti-pattern? I've seen this happen so often I'd find it hard to believe this is not a named anti-pattern. 2.) I can see a few alternatives: a.) Fix orN to take a parameter that specifies the values of all the member variables it needs. Then modify cN to call orN with all of the needed parameters passed in. b.) Try to manually port fixes from orN to cN. (Mind you I don't want to do this but it is a realistic possibility.) c.) Recopy orN to cN--again, yuck but I list it for sake of completeness. d.) Try to figure out where cN is broken and then repair it independently of orN. Alternative a seems like the best fix in the long term but I doubt the customer will let me implement it. Never time or money to fix things right but always time and money to repair the same problem 40 or 50 times, right? Can anyone suggest other approaches I may not have considered? If you were in my place, which approach would you take? If there are other questions and answers here along these lines, please post links to them. I don't mind removing this question if it's a dupe but my searching hasn't turned up anything that addresses this question yet. EDIT: Thanks everyone for all the thoughtful responses. I asked about a name for the anti-pattern so I could research it further on my own. I'm surprised this particular bad coding practice doesn't seem to have a "canonical" name for it.

    Read the article

  • When to use functional programming approach and when not? (in Java)

    - by john smith optional
    let's assume I have a task to create a Set of class names. To remove duplication of .getName() method calls for each class, I used org.apache.commons.collections.CollectionUtils and org.apache.commons.collections.Transformer as follows: Snippet 1: Set<String> myNames = new HashSet<String>(); CollectionUtils.collect( Arrays.<Class<?>>asList(My1.class, My2.class, My3.class, My4.class, My5.class), new Transformer() { public Object transform(Object o) { return ((Class<?>) o).getName(); } }, myNames); An alternative would be this code: Snippet 2: Collections.addAll(myNames, My1.class.getName(), My2.class.getName(), My3.class.getName(), My4.class.getName(), My5.class.getName()); So, when using functional programming approach is overhead and when it's not and why? Isn't my usage of functional programming approach in snippet 1 is an overhead and why?

    Read the article

  • Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

    Read the article

  • Should I extract specific functionality into a function and why?

    - by john smith optional
    I have a large method which does 3 tasks, each of them can be extracted into a separate function. If I'll make an additional functions for each of that tasks, will it make my code better or worse and why? Edit: Obviously, it'll make less lines of code in the main function, but there'll be additional function declarations, so my class will have additional methods, which I believe isn't good, because it'll make the class more complex. Edit2: Should I do that before I wrote all the code or should I leave it until everything is done and then extract functions?

    Read the article

  • best way to send messages to all subscribers with multiple subscriptions and multiple providers

    - by coding_idiot
    I'm writing an application in which - Many users can subsribe to posts made by another users. So for a single publisher there can be many subscribers. When a message is posted by an user X, all users who have subscribed to messages of User X will be sent an email. How to achieve this ? I'm thinking of using publish-subscribe pattern. And then I came through JMS. Which is the best JMS implementation to use according to your experience ? Or else what else solution do you propose to the given problem ? Shall I go for a straight-forward solution ?: User x posts a message, I find all users (from database) who subscribe to user x and then for every user, I call the sendEmail() method. [EDIT] My intention here is not to send-emails. I'm really sorry if it wasn't clear. I also have to send kind of system-notifications apart from Email to all subscribers. Right now, I've implemented the email-sending as a threadPool

    Read the article

  • Is there a name for the Builder Pattern where the Builder is implemented via interfaces so certain parameters are required?

    - by Zipper
    So we implemented the builder pattern for most of our domain to help in understandability of what actually being passed to a constructor, and for the normal advantages that a builder gives. The one twist was that we exposed the builder through interfaces so we could chain required functions and unrequired functions to make sure that the correct parameters were passed. I was curious if there was an existing pattern like this. Example below: public class Foo { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; private Foo(Builder builder) { this.someThing = builder.someThing; this.someThing2 = builder.someThing2; this.someThing3 = builder.someThing3; } public static RequiredSomething getBuilder() { return new Builder(); } public interface RequiredSomething { public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value); } public interface RequiredDateTime { public OptionalParamters withDateTime (DateTime value); } public interface OptionalParamters { public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value); public Foo Build ();} public static class Builder implements RequiredSomething, RequiredDateTime, OptionalParamters { private int someThing; private int someThing2; private DateTime someThing3; public RequiredDateTime withSomething (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withDateTime (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public OptionalParamters withSeomthing2 (int value) {someThing = value; return this;} public Foo build(){return new Foo(this);} } } Example of how it's called: Foo foo = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).build(); Foo foo2 = Foo.getBuilder().withSomething(1).withDateTime(DateTime.now()).withSomething2(3).build();

    Read the article

  • MVVM- Expose Model object in ViewModel

    - by Angel
    I have a wpf MVVM application , I exposed my model object into my viewModel by creating an instance of Model class (which cause dependency) into ViewModel , and instead of creating seperate VM properties , I wrap the Model properties inside my ViewModel Property. My model is just an entity framework generated proxy classes. Here is my Model class : public partial class TblProduct { public TblProduct() { this.TblPurchaseDetails = new HashSet<TblPurchaseDetail>(); this.TblPurchaseOrderDetails = new HashSet<TblPurchaseOrderDetail>(); this.TblSalesInvoiceDetails = new HashSet<TblSalesInvoiceDetail>(); this.TblSalesOrderDetails = new HashSet<TblSalesOrderDetail>(); } public int ProductId { get; set; } public string ProductCode { get; set; } public string ProductName { get; set; } public int CategoryId { get; set; } public string Color { get; set; } public Nullable<decimal> PurchaseRate { get; set; } public Nullable<decimal> SalesRate { get; set; } public string ImagePath { get; set; } public bool IsActive { get; set; } public virtual TblCompany TblCompany { get; set; } public virtual TblProductCategory TblProductCategory { get; set; } public virtual TblUser TblUser { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblPurchaseDetail> TblPurchaseDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblPurchaseOrderDetail> TblPurchaseOrderDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblSalesInvoiceDetail> TblSalesInvoiceDetails { get; set; } public virtual ICollection<TblSalesOrderDetail> TblSalesOrderDetails { get; set; } } Here is my ViewModel , public class ProductViewModel : WorkspaceViewModel { #region Constructor public ProductViewModel() { StartApp(); } #endregion //Constructor #region Properties private IProductDataService _dataService; public IProductDataService DataService { get { if (_dataService == null) { if (IsInDesignMode) { _dataService = new ProductDataServiceMock(); } else { _dataService = new ProductDataService(); } } return _dataService; } } //Get and set Model object private TblProduct _product; public TblProduct Product { get { return _product ?? (_product = new TblProduct()); } set { _product = value; } } #region Public Properties public int ProductId { get { return Product.ProductId; } set { if (Product.ProductId == value) { return; } Product.ProductId = value; RaisePropertyChanged("ProductId"); } } public string ProductName { get { return Product.ProductName; } set { if (Product.ProductName == value) { return; } Product.ProductName = value; RaisePropertyChanged(() => ProductName); } } private ObservableCollection<TblProduct> _productRecords; public ObservableCollection<TblProduct> ProductRecords { get { return _productRecords; } set { _productRecords = value; RaisePropertyChanged("ProductRecords"); } } //Selected Product private TblProduct _selectedProduct; public TblProduct SelectedProduct { get { return _selectedProduct; } set { _selectedProduct = value; if (_selectedProduct != null) { this.ProductId = _selectedProduct.ProductId; this.ProductCode = _selectedProduct.ProductCode; } RaisePropertyChanged("SelectedProduct"); } } #endregion //Public Properties #endregion // Properties #region Commands private ICommand _newCommand; public ICommand NewCommand { get { if (_newCommand == null) { _newCommand = new RelayCommand(() => ResetAll()); } return _newCommand; } } private ICommand _saveCommand; public ICommand SaveCommand { get { if (_saveCommand == null) { _saveCommand = new RelayCommand(() => Save()); } return _saveCommand; } } private ICommand _deleteCommand; public ICommand DeleteCommand { get { if (_deleteCommand == null) { _deleteCommand = new RelayCommand(() => Delete()); } return _deleteCommand; } } #endregion //Commands #region Methods private void StartApp() { LoadProductCollection(); } private void LoadProductCollection() { var q = DataService.GetAllProducts(); this.ProductRecords = new ObservableCollection<TblProduct>(q); } private void Save() { if (SelectedOperateMode == OperateModeEnum.OperateMode.New) { //Pass the Model object into Dataservice for save DataService.SaveProduct(this.Product); } else if (SelectedOperateMode == OperateModeEnum.OperateMode.Edit) { //Pass the Model object into Dataservice for Update DataService.UpdateProduct(this.Product); } ResetAll(); LoadProductCollection(); } #endregion //Methods } Here is my Service class: class ProductDataService:IProductDataService { /// <summary> /// Context object of Entity Framework model /// </summary> private MaizeEntities Context { get; set; } public ProductDataService() { Context = new MaizeEntities(); } public IEnumerable<TblProduct> GetAllProducts() { using(var context=new R_MaizeEntities()) { var q = from p in context.TblProducts where p.IsDel == false select p; return new ObservableCollection<TblProduct>(q); } } public void SaveProduct(TblProduct _product) { using(var context=new R_MaizeEntities()) { _product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; _product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; _product.CompanyId = GlobalObjects.CompanyID; context.TblProducts.Add(_product); context.SaveChanges(); } } public void UpdateProduct(TblProduct _product) { using (var context = new R_MaizeEntities()) { context.TblProducts.Attach(_product); context.Entry(_product).State = EntityState.Modified; _product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; _product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; _product.CompanyId = GlobalObjects.CompanyID; context.SaveChanges(); } } public void DeleteProduct(int _productId) { using (var context = new R_MaizeEntities()) { var product = (from c in context.TblProducts where c.ProductId == _productId select c).First(); product.LastModUserId = GlobalObjects.LoggedUserID; product.LastModDttm = DateTime.Now; product.IsDel = true; context.SaveChanges(); } } } I exposed my model object in my viewModel by creating an instance of it using new keyword, also I instantiated my DataService class in VM, I know this will cause a strong dependency. So , 1- Whats the best way to expose Model object in ViewModel ? 2- Whats the best way to use DataService in VM ?

    Read the article

  • When should code favour optimization over readability and ease-of-use?

    - by jmlane
    I am in the process of designing a small library, where one of my design goals is that the API should be as close to the domain language as possible. While working on the design, I've noticed that there are some cases in the code where a more intuitive, readable attribute/method call requires some functionally unnecessary encapsulation. Since the final product will not necessarily require high performance, I am unconcerned about making the decision to favour ease-of-use in my current project over the most efficient implementation of the code in question. I know not to assume readability and ease-of-use are paramount in all expected use-cases, such as when performance is required. I would like to know if there are more general reasons that argue for a design preferring more efficient implementations—even if only marginally so?

    Read the article

  • Efficient Website Design Brings Constructive Traffic

    There is nothing more important on the World Wide Web other than a good website design for creating a lucrative presence on Internet. Well designed websites with focused content always help in attracting the average visitor or targeted web surfer to evaluate your products or services and eventually convert to a loyal and interactive customer.

    Read the article

  • Anemic Domain Model, Business Logic and DataMapper (PHP)

    - by sunwukung
    I've implemented a rudimentary ORM layer based on DataMapper (I don't want to use a full blown ORM like Propel/Doctrine - for anything beyond simple fetch/save ops I prefer to access the data directly layer using a SQL abstraction layer). Following the DataMapper pattern, I've endeavoured to keep all persistence operations in the Mapper - including the location of related entities. My Entities have access to their Mapper, although I try not to call Mapper logic from the Entity interface (although this would be simple enough). The result is: // get a mapper and produce an entity $ProductMapper = $di->get('product_mapper'); $Product = $ProductMapper->find('[email protected]','email'); //.. mutaute some values.. save $ProductMapper->save($Product) // uses __get to trigger relation acquisition $Manufacturer = $Product->manufacturer; I've read some articles regarding the concept of an Anemic Domain model, i.e. a Model that does not contain any "business logic". When demonstrating the sort of business logic ideally suited to a Domain Model, however, acquiring related data items is a common example. Therefore I wanted to ask this question: Is persistence logic appropriate in Domain Model objects?

    Read the article

  • Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

    - by rogcg
    I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

    Read the article

  • How to determine if class meets single responsibility principle ?

    - by user1483278
    Single Responsibility Principle is based on high cohesion principle. The difference between the two is that highly cohesive classes feature a set of responsibilities that are strongly related, while classes adhering to SRP have just one responsibility. But how do we determine whether particular class features a set of responsibilities and is thus just highly cohesive, or whether it has only one responsibility and is thus adhering to SRP? Namely, isn't it more or less subjective, since some may find class very granular ( and as such will consider a class as adhering to SRP ), while others may find it not granular enough?

    Read the article

  • What is MVC, really?

    - by NickC
    As a serious programmer, how do you answer the question What is MVC? In my mind, MVC is sort of a nebulous topic — and because of that, if your audience is a learner, then you're free to describe it in general terms that are unlikely to be controversial. However, if you are speaking to a knowledgeable audience, especially an interviewer, I have a hard time thinking of a direction to take that doesn't risk a reaction of "well that's not right!...". We all have different real-world experience, and I haven't truly met the same MVC implementation pattern twice. Specifically, there seem to be disagreements regarding strictness, component definition, separation of parts (what piece fits where), etc. So, how should I explain MVC in a way that is correct, concise, and uncontroversial?

    Read the article

  • How to handle sorting of complex objects?

    - by AedonEtLIRA
    How would one sort a list of objects that have more than one sortable element? Suppose you have a simple object Car and car is a defined as such: class Car { public String make; public String model; public int year; public String color; // ... No methods, just a structure / container } I designed a simple framework that would allow for multiple SortOptions to be provided to a Sorter that would then sort the list. interface ISorter<T> { List<T> sort(List<T> items); void addSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); ISortOption<T>[] getSortOptions(); void setSortOption(ISortOption<T> option); } interface ISortOption<T> { String getLabel(); int compare(T t1, T t2); } Example use class SimpleStringSorter extends MergeSorter<String> { { addSorter(new AlphaSorter()); } private static final class AlphaSorter implements ISortOption<String> { // ... implementation of alpha compare and get label } } The issue with this solution is that it is not easily expandable. If car was to ever receive a new field, say, currentOwner. I would need to add the field, then track down the sorter class file, implement a new sort option class then recompile the application for redistribution. Is there an easier more expandable/practical way to sort data like this?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding null in a controller

    - by Kevin Burke
    I'm trying to work through how to write this code. def get(params): """ Fetch a user's details, or 404 """ user = User.fetch_by_id(params['id']) if not user: abort(404) # Render some template for the user... What's the best way to handle the case where the lookup fails? One principle says you should avoid returning null values from functions. These lead to mistakes and AttributeErrors etc. later on in the file. Another idea is to have fetch_by_id raise a ValueError or similar if no user exists with that id. However there's a general principle that you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow, either, which doesn't help much. What could be done better in this case?

    Read the article

  • "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

    - by Simon
    Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

    Read the article

  • Tester/Doer pattern: Assume the caller conforms to the pattern or be defensive and repeat the check?

    - by Daniel Hilgarth
    Assume a simple class that implements the Tester/Doer pattern: public class FooCommandHandler : ICommandHandler { public bool CanHandle(object command) { return command is FooCommand; } public void Handle(object command) { var fooCommand = (FooCommand)command; // Do something with fooCommand } } Now, if someone doesn't conform to the pattern and calls Handle without verifying the command via CanHandle, the code in Handle throws an exception. However, depending on the actual implementation of Handle this can be a whole range of different exceptions. The following implementation would check CanHandle again in Handle and throw a descriptive exception: public void Handle(object command) { if(!CanHandle(command)) throw new TesterDoerPatternUsageViolationException("Please call CanHandle first"); // actual implementation of handling the command. } This has the advantage that the exception is very descriptive. It has the disadvantage that CanHandle is called twice for "good" clients. Is there a consensus on which variation should be used?

    Read the article

  • Strategies for avoiding SQL in your Controllers... or how many methods should I have in my Models?

    - by Keith Palmer
    So a situation I run into reasonably often is one where my models start to either: Grow into monsters with tons and tons of methods OR Allow you to pass pieces of SQL to them, so that they are flexible enough to not require a million different methods For example, say we have a "widget" model. We start with some basic methods: get($id) insert($record) update($id, $record) delete($id) getList() // get a list of Widgets That's all fine and dandy, but then we need some reporting: listCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listPurchasedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listOfPending() And then the reporting starts to get complex: listPendingCreatedBetween($start_date, $end_date) listForCustomer($customer_id) listPendingCreatedBetweenForCustomer($customer_id, $start_date, $end_date) You can see where this is growing... eventually we have so many specific query requirements that I either need to implement tons and tons of methods, or some sort of "query" object that I can pass to a single -query(query $query) method... ... or just bite the bullet, and start doing something like this: list = MyModel-query(" start_date X AND end_date < Y AND pending = 1 AND customer_id = Z ") There's a certain appeal to just having one method like that instead of 50 million other more specific methods... but it feels "wrong" sometimes to stuff a pile of what's basically SQL into the controller. Is there a "right" way to handle situations like this? Does it seem acceptable to be stuffing queries like that into a generic -query() method? Are there better strategies?

    Read the article

  • does class reference itself static anti pattern in prism

    - by Michael Riva
    I have an application and my desing approach look like this: class Manager { public int State; static Manager _instance = null; public static Manager Instance { get { return _instance; } set { if (_instance == value) return; _instance = value; } } public Manager() { State = 0; Instance=this; } } class Module1 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module2 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } class Module3 { public void GetState() { Console.WriteLine(Manager.Instance.State); } } Manager class already registered in Bootstrapper like : protected override void ConfigureContainer() { base.ConfigureContainer(); Container.RegisterType<Manager>(new ContainerControlledLifetimeManager()); } protected override void InitializeModules() { Manager man= Container.Resolve<Manager>(); } Question is do I need to define my manager object as static in its field to be able to reach its state? Or this is anti pattern or bad for performance?

    Read the article

  • How Visual Studio could help to avoid duplicating code?

    - by MegaMind
    I work within a team of developers. Everyone is making their changes without carrying too much if the same thing is already implemented in the codebase. This leads to classes constantly growing and to severe duplication. I want to add line items to class definitions from which a developer could judge what this class has. Would it help? How to do it in Visual Studio? If it wouldn't help, what would be the better alternative to encourage the developers to check if something exists before implementing it?

    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 | 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115  | Next Page >