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 >

  • Should ActionResult perform other tasks too

    - by Ori
    In Asp.net MVC one is encouraged to derive custom ActionResults, however should these classes handle other tasks unrelated to views, perhaps a EmailActionResult would render a view then send an email. What is best practice for the class ActionResult, is it only view specific? I want to keep things DRY too. Should the sending of the email be factored into a service class? perhaps using a filter would work. what are your thoughts?

    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

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    Read the article

  • Design advice for avoiding change in several classes

    - by Anders Svensson
    Hi, I'm trying to figure out how to design a small application more elegantly, and make it more resistant to change. Basically it is a sort of project price calculator, and the problem is that there are many parameters that can affect the pricing. I'm trying to avoid cluttering the code with a lot of if-clauses for each parameter, but still I have e.g. if-clauses in two places checking for the value of the size parameter. I have the Head First Design Patterns book, and have tried to find ideas there, but the closest I got was the decorator pattern, which has an example where starbuzz coffee sets prices depending first on condiments added, and then later in an exercise by adding a size parameter (Tall, Grande, Venti). But that didn't seem to help, because adding that parameter still seemed to add if-clause complexity in a lot of places (and this being an exercise they didn't explain that further). What I am trying to avoid is having to change several classes if a parameter were to change or a new parameter added, or at least change in as few places as possible (there's some fancy design principle word for this that I don't rememeber :-)). Here below is the code. Basically it calculates the price for a project that has the tasks "Writing" and "Analysis" with a size parameter and different pricing models. There will be other parameters coming in later too, like "How new is the product?" (New, 1-5 years old, 6-10 years old), etc. Any advice on the best design would be greatly appreciated, whether a "design pattern" or just good object oriented principles that would make it resistant to change (e.g. adding another size, or changing one of the size values, and only have to change in one place rather than in several if-clauses): public class Project { private readonly int _numberOfProducts; protected Size _size; public Task Analysis { get; set; } public Task Writing { get; set; } public Project(int numberOfProducts) { _numberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _size = GetSize(); Analysis = new AnalysisTask(numberOfProducts, _size); Writing = new WritingTask(numberOfProducts, _size); } private Size GetSize() { if (_numberOfProducts <= 2) return Size.small; if (_numberOfProducts <= 8) return Size.medium; return Size.large; } public double GetPrice() { return Analysis.GetPrice() + Writing.GetPrice(); } } public abstract class Task { protected readonly int _numberOfProducts; protected Size _size; protected double _pricePerHour; protected Dictionary<Size, int> _hours; public abstract int TotalHours { get; } public double Price { get; set; } protected Task(int numberOfProducts, Size size) { _numberOfProducts = numberOfProducts; _size = size; } public double GetPrice() { return _pricePerHour * TotalHours; } } public class AnalysisTask : Task { public AnalysisTask(int numberOfProducts, Size size) : base(numberOfProducts, size) { _pricePerHour = 850; _hours = new Dictionary<Size, int>() { { Size.small, 56 }, { Size.medium, 104 }, { Size.large, 200 } }; } public override int TotalHours { get { return _hours[_size]; } } } public class WritingTask : Task { public WritingTask(int numberOfProducts, Size size) : base(numberOfProducts, size) { _pricePerHour = 650; _hours = new Dictionary<Size, int>() { { Size.small, 125 }, { Size.medium, 100 }, { Size.large, 60 } }; } public override int TotalHours { get { if (_size == Size.small) return _hours[_size] * _numberOfProducts; if (_size == Size.medium) return (_hours[Size.small] * 2) + (_hours[Size.medium] * (_numberOfProducts - 2)); return (_hours[Size.small] * 2) + (_hours[Size.medium] * (8 - 2)) + (_hours[Size.large] * (_numberOfProducts - 8)); } } } public enum Size { small, medium, large } public partial class Form1 : Form { public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); List<int> quantities = new List<int>(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { quantities.Add(i); } comboBoxNumberOfProducts.DataSource = quantities; } private void comboBoxNumberOfProducts_SelectedIndexChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { Project project = new Project((int)comboBoxNumberOfProducts.SelectedItem); labelPrice.Text = project.GetPrice().ToString(); labelWriterHours.Text = project.Writing.TotalHours.ToString(); labelAnalysisHours.Text = project.Analysis.TotalHours.ToString(); } } At the end is a simple current calling code in the change event for a combobox that set size... (BTW, I don't like the fact that I have to use several dots to get to the TotalHours at the end here either, as far as I can recall, that violates the "principle of least knowledge" or "the law of demeter", so input on that would be appreciated too, but it's not the main point of the question) Regards, Anders

    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

  • Which of these is better practice?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    You have a sequence of functions to execute. Case A: They do not depend on each other. Which of these is better? function main() { a(); b(); c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... b(); } function b() { ... c(); } Case B: They do depend on successful completion of the previous. function main() { if (a()) if (b()) c(); } or function main() { if (!a()) return false; if (!b()) return false; c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... // maybe return false b(); } funtion b() { ... // maybe return false c(); } Better, of course, means more maintainable and easier to follow.

    Read the article

  • jquery - detect if selector returns null

    - by peirix
    What is the best way to detect if a jQuery-selector returns an empty object. If you do: alert($('#notAnElement')); you get [object Object], so the way I do it now is: alert($('#notAnElement').get(0)); which will write "undefined", and so you can do a check for that. But it seems very bad. What other way is there?

    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

  • Checking for empty arrays: count vs empty

    - by Dan McG
    This question on 'How to tell if a PHP array is empty' had me thinking of this question Is there a reason that count should be used instead of empty when determining if an array is empty or not? My personal thought would be if the 2 are equivalent for the case of empty arrays you should use empty because it gives a boolean answer to a boolean question. From the question linked above, it seems that count($var) == 0 is the popular method. To me, while technically correct, makes no sense. E.g. Q: $var, are you empty? A: 7. Hmmm... Is there a reason I should use count == 0 instead or just a matter of personal taste? As pointed out by others in comments for a now deleted answer, count will have performance impacts for large arrays because it will have to count all elements, whereas empty can stop as soon as it knows it isn't empty. So, if they give the same results in this case, but count is potentially inefficient, why would we ever use count($var) == 0?

    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

  • 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

  • What are the common programming mistakes in Python?

    - by Paul McGuire
    I was about to tag the recent question in which the OP accidentally shadowed the builtin operator module with his own local operator.py with the "common-mistakes" tag, and I saw that there are a number of interesting questions posted asking for common mistakes to avoid in Java, Ruby, Scala, Clojure, .Net, jQuery, Haskell, SQL, ColdFusion, and so on, but I didn't see any for Python. For the benefit of Python beginners, can we enumerate the common mistakes that we have all committed at one time or another, in the hopes of maybe steering a newbie or two clear of them? (In homage to "The Princess Bride", I call these the Classic Blunders.) If possible, a little supporting explanation on what the problem is, and the generally accepted resolution/workaround, so that the beginning Pythoner doesn't read your answer and say "ok, that's a mistake, how do I fix it?"

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Using table-of-contents in code?

    - by AareP
    Do you use table-of-contents for listing all the functions (and maybe variables) of a class in the beginning of big source code file? I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.. but some complex tasks require a lot of code. I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files? Or is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?

    Read the article

  • actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

    - by maxmc
    hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

    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

  • Password reset by email without a database table

    - by jpatokal
    The normal flow for resetting a user's password by mail is this: Generate a random string and store it in a database table Email string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated against database; if it matches, user's pw is reset However, maintaining a table and expiring old strings etc seems like a bit of an unnecessary hassle. Are there any obvious flaws in this alternative approach? Generate a MD5 hash of the user's existing password Email hash string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated by hashing existing pw again; if it matches, user's pw is reset Note that the user's password is already stored in a hashed and salted form, and I'm just hashing it once more to get a unique but repeatable string. And yes, there is one obvious "flaw": the reset link thus generated will not expire until the user changes their password (clicks the link). I don't really see why this would be a problem though -- if the mailbox is compromised, the user is screwed anyway.

    Read the article

  • What's the best method in ASP.NET to obtain the current domain?

    - by Graphain
    Hi, I am wondering what the best way to obtain the current domain is in ASP.NET? For instance: http://www.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://www.domainname.com http://www.sub.domainname.com/subdir/ should yield http://sub.domainname.com As a guide, I should be able to add a url like "/Folder/Content/filename.html" (say as generated by Url.RouteUrl() in ASP.NET MVC) straight onto the URL and it should work.

    Read the article

  • Should a setter return immediately if assigned the same value?

    - by Andrei Rinea
    In classes that implement INotifyPropertyChanged I often see this pattern : public string FirstName { get { return _customer.FirstName; } set { if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; _customer.FirstName = value; base.OnPropertyChanged("FirstName"); } } Precisely the lines if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; are bothering me. I've often did this but I am not that sure it's needed nor good. After all if a caller assigns the very same value I don't want to reassign the field and, especially, notify my subscribers that the property has changed when, semantically it didn't. Except saving some CPU/RAM/etc by freeing the UI from updating something that will probably look the same on the screen/whatever_medium what do we obtain? Could some people force a refresh by reassigning the same value on a property (NOT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE HOWEVER)? 1. Should we do it or shouldn't we? 2. Why?

    Read the article

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