Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

Page 109/405 | < Previous Page | 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  | Next Page >

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • How 'terse' is too terse? -- Practical guidelines for expressing as much intent in as few characters

    - by Christopher Altman
    First, I love writing as little code as possible. I think, and please correct me, one of the golden rules of programming is to express your code in as few of character as possible while maintaining human readability. But I can get a little carried away. I can pack three or four lines into one statement, something like $startDate = $dateTime > time() ? mktime(0,0,0,date('m',time()-86400),date('d',time()*2),2011) : time(); (Note: this is a notional example) I can comprehend the above code when reading it. I prefer 'mushing' it all together because having less lines per page is a good thing to me. So my question: When writing code and thinking about how compact or terse you can express yourself, what are some guidelines you use? Do you write multiple lines because you think it helps other people? Do you write as little as possible, but use comments? Or do you always look for the way to write as little code as possible and enjoy the rewards of compact statements? (Just one slightly off topic comment: I love the Perl one-liners, but that is not what I am talking about here)

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to unit test areas around exceptions

    - by Codek
    Hi, Looking at our code coverage of our unit tests we're quite high. But the last few % is tricky because a lot of them are catching things like database exceptions - which in normal circumstances just dont happen. For example the code prevents fields being too long etc, so the only possible database exceptions are if the DB is broken/down, or if the schema is changed under our feet. So is the only way to Mock the objects such that the exception can be thrown? That seems a little bit pointless. Perhaps it's better to just accept not getting 100% code coverage? Thanks, Dan

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • PHP Database connection practice

    - by Phill Pafford
    I have a script that connects to multiple databases (Oracle, MySQL and MSSQL), each database connection might not be used each time the script runs but all could be used in a single script execution. My question is, "Is it better to connect to all the databases once in the beginning of the script even though all the connections might not be used. Or is it better to connect to them as needed, the only catch is that I would need to have the connection call in a loop (so the database connection would be new for X amount of times in the loop). Yeah Example Code #1: // Connections at the beginning of the script $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: might not use all the connections $rs = queryDb($query,$dbh_*); // $dbh can be any of the 3 connections } Yeah Example Code #2: // Connections in the loop for ($i=1; $i<=5; $i++) { // NOTE: Would use all the connections but connecting multiple times $dbh_oracle = connect2db(); $dbh_mysql = connect2db(); $dbh_mssql = connect2db(); $rs_oracle = queryDb($query,$dbh_oracle); $rs_mysql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mysql); $rs_mssql = queryDb($query,$dbh_mssql); } now I know you could use a persistent connection but would that be one connection open for each database in the loop as well? Like mysql_pconnect(), mssql_pconnect() and adodb for Oracle persistent connection method. I know that persistent connection can also be resource hogs and as I'm looking for best performance/practice.

    Read the article

  • Turning Floats into Their Closest (UTF-8 Character) Fraction.

    - by Mark Tomlin
    I want to take any real number, and return the closest number, with the closest fraction as available in the UTF-8 character set, appropriate. 0/4 = 0.00 = # < .125 1/4 = 0.25 = ¼ # > .125 & < .375 2/4 = 0.50 = ½ # > .375 & < .625 3/4 = 0.75 = ¾ # > .625 & < .875 4/4 = 1.00 = # > .875 I made this function to do that task: function displayFraction($realNumber) { if (!is_float($realNumber)) { return $realNumber; } list($number, $decimal) = explode('.', $realNumber); $decimal = '.' . $decimal; switch($decimal) { case $decimal < 0.125: return $number; case $decimal > 0.125 && $decimal < 0.375: return $number . '¼'; # 188 ¼ &#188; case $decimal > 0.375 && $decimal < 0.625: return $number . '½'; # 189 ½ &#189; case $decimal > 0.625 && $decimal < 0.875: return $number . '¾'; # 190 ¾ &#190; case $decimal < 0.875: return ++$number; } } What are the better / diffrent way to do this? echo displayFraction(3.1) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3 echo displayFraction(3.141593) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.267432) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.38) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3½ Expand my mind!

    Read the article

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for storage and retrieval of error messages.

    - by ferrari fan
    What is a best practice for storing user messages in a configuration file and then retrieving them for certain events throughout an application? I was thinking of having 1 single configuration file with entries such as REQUIRED_FIELD = {0} is a required field INVALID_FORMAT = The format for {0} is {1} etc. and then calling them from a class that would be something like this public class UIMessages { public static final String REQUIRED_FIELD = "REQUIRED_FIELD"; public static final String INVALID_FORMAT = "INVALID_FORMAT"; static { // load configuration file into a "Properties" object } public static String getMessage(String messageKey) { // return properties.getProperty(messageKey); } } Is this the right way to approach this problem or is there some de-facto standard already in place?

    Read the article

  • Using the using statement with WinForms... Good Practice?

    - by Nate Heinrich
    I understand the concept and reasons behind using the using statement, and I use it with things like file resources and remote connections, I was wondering if it is good practice to use the using statement with WinForm forms and dialogs? using (MyDialog dlg = new MyDialog()) { if (dlg.ShowDialog() == EDialogResult.OK) { // Do Something } } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Use of infix operator hack in production code (Python)

    - by Casebash
    What is your opinion of using the infix operator hack in production code? Issues: The effect this will have on speed. The potential for a clashes with an object with these operators already defined. This seems particularly dangerous with generic code that is intended to handle objects of any type. It is a shame that this isn't built in - it really does improve readability

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for adding persistence to an MVC model?

    - by etheros
    I'm in the process of implementing an ultra-light MVC framework in PHP. It seems to be a common opinion that the loading of data from a database, file etc. should be independent of the Model, and I agree. What I'm unsure of is the best way to link this "data layer" into MVC. Datastore interacts with Model //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $data = $this->loadDataStore('foo', $model); $data->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates Model $model->setBar('bar'); $data->save(); //reads data from Model and saves } Controller mediates between Model and Datastore Seems a bit verbose and requires the model to know that a datastore exists. //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $data = $this->loadDataStore('foo'); $model->setDataStore($data); $model->getDataStore->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates Model $model->setBar('bar'); $model->getDataStore->save(); //reads data from Model and saves } Datastore extends Model What happens if we want to save a Model extending a database datastore to a flatfile datastore? //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadHybrid('foo'); //get_class == Datastore_Database $model->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates $model->setBar('bar'); $model->save(); //saves } Model extends datastore This allows for Model portability, but it seems wrong to extend like this. Further, the datastore cannot make use of any of the Model's methods. //controller extends model public function update() { $model = $this->loadHybrid('foo'); //get_class == Model $model->loadBar(9); //loads data and populates $model->setBar('bar'); $model->save(); //saves } EDIT: Model communicates with DAO //model public function __construct($dao) { $this->dao = $dao; } //model public function setBar($bar) { //a bunch of business logic goes here $this->dao->setBar($bar); } //controller public function update() { $model = $this->loadModel('foo'); $model->setBar('baz'); $model->save(); } Any input on the "best" option - or alternative - is most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice of using return keyword?

    - by Artic
    What is the best practice of using return keyword? If i need to return something from method which pattern is better to use? public boolean method(){ if (case1){ return true; } if (case 2){ return false; } return false; } or public boolean method(){ boolean result = false; if (case1){ result = true; } if (case 2){ result = false; } return result; }

    Read the article

  • What is the most elegant way to validate the presence of ONLY one out of two attributes using Rails?

    - by marcgg
    class Followup < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :post belongs_to :comment end This model needs to only have either a post or a comment, but only one of the two. Here's the rspec for what I'm trying to do: it "should be impossible to have both a comment and a post" do followup = Followup.make followup.comment = Comment.make followup.should be_valid followup.post = Post.make followup.should_not be_valid end I can see a bunch of ways of doing this, but what would be the most elegant way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • Why Shouldn't I Programmatically Submit Username/Password to Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/etc?

    - by viatropos
    I wish there was a central, fully customizable, open source, universal login system that allowed you to login and manage all of your online accounts (maybe there is?)... I just found RPXNow today after starting to build a Sinatra app to login to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, OpenID, and EventBrite, and it looks like it might save some time. But I keep wondering, not being an authentication guru, why couldn't I just have a sleek login page saying "Enter username and password, and check your login service", and then in the background either scrape the login page from say EventBrite and programmatically submit the form with Mechanize, or use an API if there was one? It would be so much cleaner and such a better user experience if they didn't have to go through popups and redirects and they could use any previously existing accounts. My question is: What are the reasons why I shouldn't do something like that? I don't know much about the serious details of cookies/sessions/security, so if you could be descriptive or point me to some helpful links that would be awesome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Avoid writing SQL queries altogether in SSIS

    - by Jonn
    Working on a Data Warehouse project, the guy that gave us the tutorial advised that we stick to using SQL queries over defining a lot of data flow transformations, citing points like it'll consume a lot of memory on the ETL box so we'd rather leave the processing to the DB box. Is this really advisable? Where's the balance between relying on GUI tools over executing a bunch of SQL scripts on your Integration package? And honestly, I'd like to avoid writing SQL queries as much as I can.

    Read the article

  • PDO update query with conditional?

    - by dmontain
    I have a PDO mysql that updates 3 fields. $update = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2, field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); But I want field3 to be updated only when $update3 = true; (meaning that the update of field3 is controlled by a conditional statement) Is this possible to accomplish with a single query? I could do it with 2 queries where I update field1 and field2 then check the boolean and update field3 if needed in a separate query. //run this query to update only fields 1 and 2 $update_part1 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2 WHERE key=:key"); //if field3 should be update, run a separate query to update it separately if ($update3){ $update_part2 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); } But hopefully there is a way to accomplish this in 1 query?

    Read the article

  • Programming Concepts: What should be done when an exception is thrown?

    - by Dooms101
    This does not really apply to any language specifically, but if it matters I am using VB.NET in Visual Studio 2008. I can't seem to find anything really that useful using Google about this topic, but I was wondering what is common practice when an exception is thrown and caught but since it has been thrown the application cannot continue operating. For example I have exceptions that are thrown by my FileLoader class when a file cannot be found or when a file is deemed corrupt. The exception is only thrown within the class and is not handled really. If the error is detected, then the exception is thrown and whatever function is was thrown is basically quits. So in the code trying to create that object or call one of its members I use a Try...Catch statement. However, I was wondering, what should even do when this exception is caught? My application needs these files to be intact, and if they are not, the application is almost useless. So far I just pop up a message box telling the user their is an error and to reinstall. What else can I do, or better, what's common practice in these situations?

    Read the article

  • How often to run getWritableDatabase() and getReadableDatabase()?

    - by jawonlee
    I'm writing a Service, a Content Provider, and one or more apps. The Service writes new data to the Content Provider's SQLite database every 5 minutes or so plus at user input, and is intended to run pretty much forever in the background. The app, when running, will display data pulled from the Content Provider, and will be refreshed whenever the Service puts more data into the Content Provider's database. Given that the Service only inserts into the database once every five minutes, when is the right time to call SQLiteOpenHelper's getWritableDatabase() / getReadableDatabase()? Is it on the onCreate() of the Content Provider, or should I run it every time there is an insert() and close it at the end of insert()? The data being inserted every 5 minutes will contain multiple inserts.

    Read the article

  • Is it better to use List or Collection?

    - by Vivin Paliath
    I have an object that stores some data in a list. The implementation could change later, and I don't want to expose the internal implementation to the end user. However, the user must have the ability to modify and access this collection of data. Currently I have something like this: public List<SomeDataType> getData() { return this.data; } public void setData(List<SomeDataType> data) { this.data = data; } Does this mean that I have allowed the internal implementation details to leak out? Should I be doing this instead? public Collection<SomeDataType> getData() { return this.data; } public void setData(Collection<SomeDataType> data) { this.data = new ArrayList<SomeDataType>(data); }

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to generally make heavyweight classes non-copyable?

    - by Emile Cormier
    I have a Shape class containing potentially many vertices, and I was contemplating making copy-constructor/copy-assignment private to prevent accidental needless copying of my heavyweight class (for example, passing by value instead of by reference). To make a copy of Shape, one would have to deliberately call a "clone" or "duplicate" method. Is this good practice? I wonder why STL containers don't use this approach, as I rarely want to pass them by value.

    Read the article

  • Any difference in compiler behavior for each of these snippets?

    - by HotHead
    Please consider following code: 1. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < 0x0002) { // do something } 2. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < uint16(0x0002)) { // do something } 3. uint16 a = 0x0001; if(a < static_cast<uint16>(0x0002)) { // do something } 4. uint16 a = 0x0001; uint16 b = 0x0002; if(a < b) { // do something } What compiler does in backgorund and what is the best (and correct) way to do above testing? p.s. sorry, but I couldn't find the better title :) EDIT: values 0x0001 and 0x0002 are only example. There coudl be any 2 byte value instead. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Generic data input form in asp.net mvc application

    - by Diego
    Hello, I have an application that have EF 16 classes that share this information: They all are classes only with a key field and a description. I think it should be a waste if I make a controller with just 1 method just to present a form to fill these classes info, then I was thinking in to make a generic form(with key, description) and dynamically fill the right class through a sort of selection the selected info in any way, any good suggestion or pattern to do that? Where the generic methods should be located.

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116  | Next Page >