Search Results

Search found 4704 results on 189 pages for 'refactoring databases'.

Page 11/189 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• How to refactor while keeping accuracy and redundancy?

  - by jluzwick

  Before I ask this question I will preface it with our environment. My team consists of 3 programmers working on multiple different projects. Due to this, our use of testing is mostly limited to very general black box testing. Take the following assumptions also: Unit Tests will eventually be written but I'm under strict orders to refactor first Ignore common Test-Driven Development techniques when given this environment, my time is limited. I understand that if this were done correctly, our team would actually save money in the long-term by building Unit-Tests before hand. I'm about to refactor a fairly large portion of the code that is critical. While I believe my code will accurately work when done and after our black box testing, I realize that there will be new data that the new code might not be able to handle. What I wanted to know is how to keep old code that functions 98% of the time so that we can call those subroutines in case the new code doesn't work properly. Right now I'm thinking of separating the old code in a separate class file and adding a variable to our config that will tell the program which code to use. Is there a better way to handle this? NOTE: We do use revision control and we have archived builds so the client could always revert to a previous build, but I would like to see if there is a decent way of doing this besides reverting. I want this so they can use the other new functionality delivered in the new build. Edit: While I agree I will need to write Unit Tests for this, I don't believe I will capture everything with them. I'm looking for ways to easily be able to revert to the old, functional code should anything happen. While I know this is a poor practice, I'm planning on removing this code after our team can guarantee that the new code works to the same standards as the old.

  Read the article

• Colleague unwilling to use unit tests "as it's more to code"

  - by m.edmondson

  A colleague is unwilling to use unit tests and instead opting for a quick test, pass it to the users, and if all is well it is published live. Needless to say some bugs do get through. I mentioned we should think about using unit tests - but she was all against it once it was realised more code would have to be written. This leaves me in the position of modifying something and not being sure the output is the same, especially as her code is spaghetti and I try to refactor it when I get a chance. So whats the best way forward for me?

  Read the article

• JSP Include: one large bean or bean for each include

  - by shylynx

  I want to refactor a webapp that consists of very distorted JSPs and servlets. Because we can't switch to a web framework easily we have to keep JSPs and Servlets, and now we are in doubt how to include pages into another and how to setup the use:bean-directives effectively. At the first step we want to decouple the code for the core-actions and the bean-creation into servlets. The servlets should forward to their corresponding pages, which should use the bean. The problem here is, that each jsp consists of different sub- and sub-sub-jsp that are included into another. Here is a shortend extract (because reality is more complex): head header top navigation actionspanel main header actionspanel foot footer Moreover each jsp (also the header and footer) use dynamic data. For example title and actionspanel can change on each page-reload or do have links and labels that depend on the processing by the preceding servlet. I know that jsp-include-directives should only be used for static content und should be avoided for dynamic content. But here we have very large pages, that consist of many parts. Now the core questions: Should I use one big bean for each page, so that each bean holds also data for header and footer beside its core data, so that each subsequent included jsp uses the same bean-directive? For example: DirectoryJSP <- DirectoryBean CompareJSP <- CompareBean Or should I use one bean for each jsp, so that each bean only holds the data for one jsp and its own purpose. For example: DirectoryJSP <- DirectoryBean HeaderJSP <- HeaderBean FooterJSP <- FooterBean CompareJSP <- CompareBean HeaderJSP <- HeaderBean FooterJSP <- FooterBean In the second case: should the subsequent beans be a member of the corresponding parent bean, so that only the parent bean is attached as attribute to the request? Or should each bean attached to the request?

  Read the article

• Is there a resource that explains the benefits of layered programming?

  - by P.Brian.Mackey

  Some developers I know favor what I would call a procedural programming style. I recognize that procedural programming has its uses, albeit not in the business application world of .NET programming. So let's say we have a winform application with a buttonclick event. The buttonclick handles everything from the UI configuration to the database call and data manipulation. So you end up with a method that is 100's of lines of code long. Outside the fact that this code can't be considered test-able for various reasons, this style of programming is fragile to change. I can talk bout OO, Anti-patterns, etc. The problem is that any distinct topic I can dream up requires a great deal of explanation to understand the potential benefits. Outside of finding a new job (lots of businesses program this way), how can I teach these kinds of developers how to write better code? Obviously we can't sit around a round table and discuss pro's and con's all day due to time constraints and real work that has to be done. Although, training and intense training is the only thing I can think of to fix these problems. Not to say I write perfect code, I most certainly do not. I do believe there are certain best practices that should be followed as a rule E.G. OO in the context of .NET. The most common excuse I hear is "we can't write code fast enough if we do it like that".

  Read the article

• Get entities ids from two similar collections using one method

  - by Patryk Roszczyniala

  I've got two lists: List<Integer, ZooEntity> zoos; List<Integer, List<ZooEntity>> groupOfZoos; These operations will return collections of values: Collection<ZooEntity> cz = zoos.values(); Collection<List<ZooEntity>> czList = groupOfZoos.values(); What I want to achieve is to get list of all zoo ids. List<Integer> zooIds = cz ids + czList ids; Of course I can create two methods to do what I want: public List<Integer> getIdsFromFlatList(Collection<ZooEntity> list) { List<Integer> ids = new ArrayList<Integer>(); for (ZooEntity z : list) { ids.add(z.getId()); } return ids; } public List<Integer> getIdsFromNestedList(Collection<List<ZooEntity>> list) { List<Integer> ids = new ArrayList<Integer>(); for (List<ZooEntity> zList : list) { for (ZooEntity z : zList) { ids.add(z.getId()); } } return ids; } As you can see those two methods are very similar and here is my question: Is it good to create one method (for example using generics) which will get ids from those two lists (zoos and groupOfZoos). If yes how it should look like? If no what is the best solution? BTW. This is only the example. I've got very similar problem at job and I want to do it in preety way (I can't change enities, I can change only getIds...() methods).

  Read the article

• Would you refactor this and if so, would you charge your client?

  - by Julius

  I am working on a freelance job at home. The client wants me to write some new functionality for his CMS, but it is taking me a lot of time to figure out what the code is doing, because it is written in a very unreadable style. Below is just an example of what I mean. The previous programmer made extensive use of anonymous functions, of eval(), he uses deeply nested ternary operators, he didn't indent code, didn't use comments, and he uses funny constructions like misusing the behaviour of logical operators || and && for creating if/else conditions (the second condition of && only gets tested if the first one is true, opening the possibility to use && as an if/else construction). All in all it's insane code and it's costing me a lot of time to find out how the current code works. return ($this->main->context != "ajax" || in_array($this->type, $this->definition->ajax)) ? eval('return method_exists($this,"Show'.ucfirst($this->type).'") ? $this->Show'.ucfirst($this->type).'('.(count($args) ? join(",",array_map(create_function('$a','return (is_numeric($a) || preg_match("/^array/",$a)) ? $a : "\"".$a."\"";'),$args)) : "").') : null;') : ''; Would you refactor this code and how would you handle this sort of thing with your client, I mean financially?

  Read the article

• How to refactor an OO program into a functional one?

  - by Asik

  I'm having difficulty finding resources on how to write programs in a functional style. The most advanced topic I could find discussed online was using structural typing to cut down on class hierarchies; most just deal with how to use map/fold/reduce/etc to replace imperative loops. What I would really like to find is an in-depth discussion of an OOP implementation of a non-trivial program, its limitations, and how to refactor it in a functional style. Not just an algorithm or a data structure, but something with several different roles and aspects - a video game perhaps. By the way I did read Real-World Functional Programming by Tomas Petricek, but I'm left wanting more.

  Read the article

• Why is my class worse than the hierarchy of classes in the book (beginner OOP)?

  - by aditya menon

  I am reading this book. The author is trying to model a lesson in a college. The goal is to output the Lesson Type (Lecture or Seminar), and the Charges for the lesson depending on whether it is a hourly or fixed price lesson. So the output should be: lesson charge 20. Charge type: hourly rate. lesson type seminar. lesson charge 30. Charge type: fixed rate. lesson type lecture. When the input is as follows: $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); I wrote this: class Lesson { private $chargeType; private $duration; private $lessonType; public function __construct($chargeType, $duration, $lessonType) { $this->chargeType = $chargeType; $this->duration = $duration; $this->lessonType = $lessonType; } public function getChargeType() { return $this->getChargeType; } public function getLessonType() { return $this->getLessonType; } public function cost() { if($this->chargeType == 'fixed rate') { return "30"; } else { return $this->duration * 5; } } } $lessons[] = new Lesson('hourly rate', 4, 'seminar'); $lessons[] = new Lesson('fixed rate', null, 'lecture'); foreach($lessons as $lesson) { print "lesson charge {$lesson->cost()}."; print " Charge type: {$lesson->getChargeType()}."; print " lesson type {$lesson->getLessonType()}."; print "<br />"; } But according to the book, I am wrong (I am pretty sure I am, too). The author gave a large hierarchy of classes as the solution instead. In a previous chapter, the author stated the following 'four signposts' as the time when I should consider changing my class structure: Code Duplication The Class Who Knew Too Much About His Context The Jack of All Trades - Classes that try to do many things Conditional Statements The only problem I can see is Conditional Statements, and that too in a vague manner - so why refactor this? What problems do you think might arise in the future that I have not foreseen?

  Read the article

• Why write clean, refactored code?

  - by Shamal Karunarathne

  Hi programming lovers, This is a question I've been asking myself for a long time. Thought of throwing out it to you. From my experience of working on several Java based projects, I've seen tons of codes which we call 'dirty'. The unconventional class/method/field naming, wrong way of handling of exceptions, unnecessarily heavy loops and recursion etc. But the code gives the intended results. Though I hate to see dirty code, it's time taking to clean them up and eventually comes the question of "is it worth? it's giving the desired results so what's the point of cleaning?" In team projects, should there be someone specifically to refactor and check for clean code? Or are there situations where the 'dirty' codes fail to give intended results or make the customers unhappy? Do feel free to comment and reply. And tell me if I'm missing something here. Thanks.

  Read the article

• How to drastically improve code coverage?

  - by Peter Kofler

  I'm tasked with getting a legacy application under unit test. First some background about the application: It's a 600k LOC Java RCP code base with these major problems massive code duplication no encapsulation, most private data is accessible from outside, some of the business data also made singletons so it's not just changeable from outside but also from everywhere. no business model, business data is stored in Object[] and double[][], so no OO. There is a good regression test suite and an efficient QA team is testing and finding bugs. I know the techniques how to get it under test from classic books, e.g. Michael Feathers, but that's too slow. As there is a working regression test system I'm not afraid to aggressively refactor the system to allow unit tests to be written. How should I start to attack the problem to get some coverage quickly, so I'm able to show progress to management (and in fact to start earning from safety net of JUnit tests)? I do not want to employ tools to generate regression test suites, e.g. AgitarOne, because these tests do not test if something is correct.

  Read the article

• What is the most effective way to add functionality to unfamiliar, structurally unsound code?

  - by Coder

  This is probably something everyone has to face during the development sooner or later. You have an existing code written by someone else, and you have to extend it to work under new requirements. Sometimes it's simple, but sometimes the modules have medium to high coupling and medium to low cohesion, so the moment you start touching anything, everything breaks. And you don't feel that it's fixed correctly when you get the new and old scenarios working again. One approach would be to write tests, but in reality, in all cases I've seen, that was pretty much impossible (reliance on GUI, missing specifications, threading, complex dependencies and hierarchies, deadlines, etc). So everything sort of falls back to good ol' cowboy coding approach. But I refuse to believe there is no other systematic way that would make everything easier. Does anyone know a better approach, or the name of the methodology that should be used in such cases?

  Read the article

• After how much line of code a function should be break down?

  - by Sumeet

  While working on existing code base, I usually come across procedures that contain Abusive use of IF and Switch statements. The procedures consist of overwhelming code, which I think require re-factoring badly. The situation gets worse when I identify that some of these are recursive as well. But this is always a matter of debate as the code is working fine and no one wants to wake up the dragon. But, everyone accepts it is very expensive code to manage. I am wondering if are any recommendations to determine if a particular Method is a culprit and needs a revisit/rewrite , so that it can broken down or polymophized in an effective manner. Are there any Metrics (like no. of lines in procedure) that can be used to identify such segment of code. The checklist or advice to convince everyone, will be great!

  Read the article

• C# replacing out parameters with struct

  - by Jonathan

  I'm encountering a lot of methods in my project that have a bunch of out parameters embedded in them and its making it cumbersome to call the methods as I have to start declaring the variables before calling the methods. As such, I would like to refactor the code to return a struct instead and was wondering if this is a good idea. One of the examples from an interface: void CalculateFinancialReturnTotals(FinancialReturn fr, out decimal expenses, out decimal revenue, out decimal levyA, out decimal levyB, out decimal profit, out decimal turnover, out string message) and if I was to refactor that, i would be putting all the out parameters in the struct such that the method signature is much simpler as below. [structName] CalculateFinancialReturnTotals(FinancialReturn fr); Please advise.

  Read the article

• Dealing with coworkers when developing, need advice [closed]

  - by Yippie-Kai-Yay

  I developed our current project architecture and started developing it on my own (reaching something like, revision 40). We're developing a simple subway routing framework and my design seemed to be done extremely well - several main models, corresponding views, main logic and data structures were modeled "as they should be" and fully separated from rendering, algorithmic part was also implemented apart from the main models and had a minor number of intersection points. I would call that design scalable, customizable, easy-to-implement, interacting mostly based on the "black box interaction" and, well, very nice. Now, what was done: I started some implementations of the corresponding interfaces, ported some convenient libraries and wrote implementation stubs for some application parts. I had the document describing coding style and examples of that coding style usage (my own written code). I forced the usage of more or less modern C++ development techniques, including no-delete code (wrapped via smart pointers) and etc. I documented the purpose of concrete interface implementations and how they should be used. Unit tests (mostly, integration tests, because there wasn't a lot of "actual" code) and a set of mocks for all the core abstractions. I was absent for 12 days. What do we have now (the project was developed by 4 other members of the team): 3 different coding styles all over the project (I guess, two of them agreed to use the same style :), same applies to the naming of our abstractions (e.g CommonPathData.h, SubwaySchemeStructures.h), which are basically headers declaring some data structures. Absolute lack of documentation for the recently implemented parts. What I could recently call a single-purpose-abstraction now handles at least 2 different types of events, has tight coupling with other parts and so on. Half of the used interfaces now contain member variables (sic!). Raw pointer usage almost everywhere. Unit tests disabled, because "(Rev.57) They are unnecessary for this project". ... (that's probably not everything). Commit history shows that my design was interpreted as an overkill and people started combining it with personal bicycles and reimplemented wheels and then had problems integrating code chunks. Now - the project still does only a small amount of what it has to do, we have severe integration problems, I assume some memory leaks. Is there anything possible to do in this case? I do realize that all my efforts didn't have any benefit, but the deadline is pretty soon and we have to do something. Did someone have a similar situation? Basically I thought that a good (well, I did everything that I could) start for the project would probably lead to something nice, however, I understand that I'm wrong. Any advice would be appreciated, sorry for my bad english.

  Read the article

• What approaches can I take to lower the odds of introducing new bugs in a complex legacy app?

  - by m.edmondson

  Where I work I often have to develop (and bug fix) in an old system (.NET 1) whos code is complete spaghetti - with little thought given to variable names, program structure nor comments. Because of this it takes me ages to understand what bits need changed, and I often 'break' the existing software because I've made a modification. I really really want to spend a couple of months (with colleagues) going through it to refactor but existing developers both can't see the need - nor think theres time for this (the system is massive). I dread having to work on its code as it takes days to fix something only to find out I've broken something else. This obviously makes me look incompetent - so how can I deal with this?

  Read the article

• How to deal with almost the same enums?

  - by reza

  I need to define enums in several classes. The majority of fields are the same in all of the enums. But one has one or two more fields, another has fewer fields. Now I wonder what is the best way to deal with this? Create separate enums public enum Foo {field1, field2, field5 }; public enum Bar {field1, field2, field3, field4 }; or use a general enum for them all public enum FooBar {field1, field2, field3, field4 , field5}; The enumerations contain the list of actions available for each class.

  Read the article

• What is an effective way to convert a shared memory-mapped system to another data access model?

  - by Rob Jones

  I have a code base that is designed around shared memory. Each process that needs to access the memory maps it into its own address space. The data structures in the shared memory are directly accessed, that is, there is no API. For example: Assume the following: typedef struct { int x; int y; struct { int a; int b; } z; } myStruct; myStruct s; Then a process might access this structure as: myStruct *s = mapGlobalMem(); And use it as: int tmpX = s->x; The majority of the information in the global structure is configuration information that is set once and read many times. I would like to store this information in a database and develop an API to access the database. The problem is, these references are sprinkled throughout the code. I need a way to parse the code and identify global structure references that will need to be refactored. I've looked into using ANTLR to create a parser that will identify references to a small set of structures and enter them into a custom symbol table. I could then use this symbol table to identify which source files need to be refactored. It looks like a promising approach. What other approaches are there? Of course, I'm looking for a programmatic approach. There are far too many source files to examine each one visually. This is all ordinary ANSI C. Nothing else.

  Read the article

• How to fix the copy/paste-pattern?

  - by Lenny222

  Where i work, people (consultants) feel pressed to release features as fast as possible. So instead of spending too much time on thinking about how to do things the right way or because they don't want to break anything, code gets copied from different modules and modified. It's not easy to prevent this, since the code base is open to the whole company. Lots of people work on this. Now that the mess is there already, what is the best way to remove those redundancies without breaking too much?

  Read the article

• Breaking up a large PHP object used to abstract the database. Best practices?

  - by John Kershaw

  Two years ago it was thought a single object with functions such as $database->get_user_from_id($ID) would be a good idea. The functions return objects (not arrays), and the front-end code never worries about the database. This was great, until we started growing the database. There's now 30+ tables, and around 150 functions in the database object. It's getting impractical and unmanageable and I'm going to be breaking it up. What is a good solution to this problem? The project is large, so there's a limit to the extent I can change things. My current plan is to extend the current object for each table, then have the database object contain these. So, the above example would turn into (assume "user" is a table) $database->user->get_user_from_id($ID). Instead of one large file, we would have a file for every table.

  Read the article

• How do I take responsibility for my code when colleague makes unnecessary improvements without notice?

  - by Jesslyn

  One of my teammates is a jack of all trades in our IT shop and I respect his insight. However, sometimes he reviews my code (he's second in command to our team leader, so that's expected) without a heads up. So sometimes he reviews my changes before they complete the end goal and makes changes right away... and has even broken my work once. Other times, he has made unnecessary improvements to some of my code that is 3+ months old. This annoys me for a few reasons: I am not always given a chance to fix my mistakes He has not taken the time to ask me what I was trying to accomplish when he is confused, which could affect his testing or changes I don't always think his code is readable Deadlines are not an issue and his current workload doesn't require any work in my projects other than reviewing my code changes. Anyways, I have told him in the past to please keep me posted if he sees something in my work that he wants to change so that I could take ownership of my code (maybe I should have said "shortcomings") and he's not been responsive. I fear that I may come off as aggressive when I ask him to explain his changes to me. He's just a quiet person who keeps to himself, but his actions continue. I don't want to banish him from making code changes (not like I could), because we are a team--but I want to do my part to help our team. Added clarifications: We share 1 development branch. I do not wait until all my changes complete a single task because I risk losing some significant work--so I make sure my changes build and do not break anything. My concern is that my teammate doesn't explain the reason or purpose behind his changes. I don't think he should need my blessing, but if we disagree on an approach I thought it would be best to discuss the pros and cons and make a decision once we both understand what is going on. I have not discussed this with our team lead yet as I would prefer to resolve personal disagreements without getting management involved unless it is necessary. Since my concern seemed more of personal issue than a threat to our work, I chose to not bother the team lead. I am working on code review process ideas--to help promote the benefits of more organized code reviews without making it all about my pet peeves.

  Read the article

• Techniques to re-factor garbage and maintain sanity?

  - by Incognito

  So I'm sitting down to a nice bowl of c# spaghetti, and need to add something or remove something... but I have challenges everywhere from functions passing arguments that doesn't make sense, someone who doesn't understand data structures abusing strings, redundant variables, some comments are red-hearings, internationalization is on a per-every-output-level, SQL doesn't use any kind of DBAL, database connections are left open everywhere... Are there any tools or techniques I can use to at least keep track of the "functional integrity" of the code (meaning my "improvements" don't break it), or a resource online with common "bad patterns" that explains a good way to transition code? I'm basically looking for a guidebook on how to spin straw into gold. Here's some samples from the same 500 line function: protected void DoSave(bool cIsPostBack) { //ALWAYS a cPostBack cIsPostBack = true; SetPostBack("1"); string inCreate ="~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"; parseValues = new string []{"","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","",""}; if (!cIsPostBack) { //....... //.... //.... if (!cIsPostBack) { } else { } //.... //.... strHPhone = StringFormat(s1.Trim()); s1 = parseValues[18].Replace(encStr," "); strWPhone = StringFormat(s1.Trim()); s1 = parseValues[11].Replace(encStr," "); strWExt = StringFormat(s1.Trim()); s1 = parseValues[21].Replace(encStr," "); strMPhone = StringFormat(s1.Trim()); s1 = parseValues[19].Replace(encStr," "); //(hundreds of lines of this) //.... //.... SQL = "...... lots of SQL .... "; SqlCommand curCommand; curCommand = new SqlCommand(); curCommand.Connection = conn1; curCommand.CommandText = SQL; try { curCommand.ExecuteNonQuery(); } catch {} //.... } I've never had to refactor something like this before, and I want to know if there's something like a guidebook or knowledgebase on how to do this sort of thing, finding common bad patterns and offering the best solutions to repair them. I don't want to just nuke it from orbit,

  Read the article

• How to convince a client to switch to a framework *now*; also examples of great, large-scale php applications.

  - by cbrandolino

  Hi everybody. I'm about to start working on a very ambitious project that, in my opinion, has some great potential for what concerns the basic concept and the implementation ideas (implementation as in how this ideas will be implemented, not as in programming). The state of the code right now is unluckily subpar. It's vanilla php, no framework, no separation between application and visualization logic. It's been done mostly by amateur students (I know great amateur/student programmers, don't get me wrong: this was not the case though). The clients are really great, and they know the system won't scale and needs a redesign. The problem is, they would like to launch a beta ASAP and then think of rebuilding. Since just the basic functionalities are present now, I suggested it would be a great idea if we (we're a three-people shop, all very proficient) ported that code to some framework (we like CodeIgniter) before launching. We would reasonably be able to do that in < 10 days. Problem is, they don't think php would be a valid long-term solution anyway, so they would prefer to just let it be and fix the bugs for now (there's quite a bit) and then directly switch to some ruby/python based system. Porting to CI now will make future improvements incredibly easier, the current code more secure, changing the style - still being discussed with the designers - a breeze (reminder: there are database calls in template files right now); the biggest obstacle is the lack of trust in php as a valid, scalable technology. So well, I need some examples of great php applications (apart from facebook) and some suggestions on how to try to convince them to port soon. Again, they're great people - it's not like they would like ruby cause it's so hot right now; they just don't trust php since us cool programmers like bashing it, I suppose, but I'm sure going on like this for even one more day would be a mistake. Also, we have some weight in the decision process.

  Read the article

• Use unnamed object to invoke method or not?

  - by Chen OT

  If I have a class with only only public method. When I use this class, is it good to use unnamed object to invoke its method? normal: TaxFileParser tax_parser(tax_file_name); auto content = tax_parser.get_content(); or unnamed object version: auto content = TaxFileParser(tax_file_name).get_content(); Because I've told that we should avoid temporary as possible. If tax_parser object is used only once, can I call it a temporary and try to eliminate it? Any suggestion will be helpful.

  Read the article

• Command Pattern refactor for input processing?

  - by Casey

  According to Game Coding Complete 4th. ed. processing input via the following is considered unmanagable and inflexible. But does not show an example. I've used the Command pattern to represent GUI button commands but could not figure out how to represent the input from the keyboard and/or mouse. if(g_keyboard->KeyDown(KEY_ESC)) { quit = true; return; } //Processing if(g_keyboard->KeyDown(KEY_T)) { g_show_test_gateway = !g_show_test_gateway; } if(g_mouse->ButtonDown(a2de::Mouse::BUTTON2)) { g_selected_part = GWPart::PART_NONE; SetMouseImageToPartImage(); } ResetButtonStates(); g_prevButton = g_curButton; g_curButton = GetButtonHovered(); if(g_curButton) { g_mouse->SetImageToDefault(); if(g_mouse->ButtonDown(a2de::Mouse::BUTTON1) || g_mouse->ButtonPress(a2de::Mouse::BUTTON1)) { ButtonPressCommand curCommand(g_curButton); curCommand.Execute(); } else if(g_mouse->ButtonUp(a2de::Mouse::BUTTON1)) { if(g_prevButton == g_curButton) { ButtonReleaseCommand curCommand(g_curButton); curCommand.Execute(); if(g_curButton->GetType() == "export") { ExportCommand curCommand(g_curButton, *g_gateway); curCommand.Execute(); } } else { ResetButtonStates(); } } else { ButtonHoverCommand curCommand(g_curButton); curCommand.Execute(); } } else { g_status_message.clear(); SetMouseImageToPartImage(); if(g_mouse->ButtonDown(a2de::Mouse::BUTTON1)) { CreatePartCommand curCommand(*g_gateway, g_selected_part, a2de::Vector2D(g_mouse->GetX(), g_mouse->GetY())); curCommand.Execute(); } }

  Read the article

• How should I write new code when the old codebase and the environment uses lots of globals in PHP

  - by Nicola Peluchetti

  I'm working in the Wordpress environment which itself heavily relies on globals and the codebase I'm maintaining introduces some more. I want this to change and so I'm trying to think how should I handle this. For the globals our code has introduced I think I will set them as dependencies in the constructor or in getter / setter so that I don't rely on them being globals and then refactor the old codebase little by little so that we have no globals. With Wordpress globals I was thinking to wrap all WP globals inside a Wrapper class and hide them in there. Like this class WpGlobals { public static function getDb() { global $wpdb; return $wpdb; } } Would this be of any help? The idea is that I centralize all globals in one class and do not scatter them through the code, so that if Wordpress kills one of them I need to modify code only in one place. What would you do?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >