Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

Page 111/348 | < Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >

• Do you know any examples of a PAC design pattern?

  - by Matt Farina

  Can anyone point to any websites or web applications that are using the Presentation-Abstraction-Control design pattern rather than MVC? Desktop applications are easy to find like this (e.g.; GIMP) but I'm looking for something on the web.

  Read the article

• Declaring data types in SQLite

  - by dan04

  I'm familiar with how type affinity works in SQLite: You can declare column types as anything you want, and all that matters is whether the type name contains "INT", "CHAR", "FLOA", etc. But is there a commonly-used convention on what type names to use? For example, if you have an integer column, is it better to distinguish between TINYINT, SMALLINT, MEDIUMINT, and BIGINT, or just declare everything as INTEGER? So far, I've been using the following: INTEGER REAL CHAR(n) -- for strings with a known fixed with VARCHAR(n) -- for strings with a known maximum width TEXT -- for all other strings BLOB BOOLEAN DATE -- string in "YYYY-MM-DD" format TIME -- string in "HH:MM:SS" format TIMESTAMP -- string in "YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS" format (Note that the last three are contrary to the type affinity.)

  Read the article

• Prefer extension methods for encapsulation and reusability?

  - by tzaman

  edit4: wikified, since this seems to have morphed more into a discussion than a specific question. In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. (edit: Even in the current .NET library, I can see places where it would've been useful to have extensions instead of instance methods - for example, all of the utility functions of List<T> (Sort, BinarySearch, FindIndex, etc.) would be incredibly useful if they were lifted up to IList<T> - getting free bonus functionality like that adds a lot more benefit to implementing the interface.) So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself? (edit2: In response to Tomas - while C# did start out with Java's (overly, imo) OO mentality, it seems to be embracing more multi-paradigm programming with every new release; the main thrust of this question is whether using extension methods to drive a style change (towards more generic / functional C#) is useful or worthwhile..) edit3: overridable extension methods The only real problem identified so far with this approach, is that you can't specialize extension methods if you need to. I've been thinking about the issue, and I think I've come up with a solution. Suppose I have an interface MyInterface, which I want to extend - I define my extension methods in a MyExtension static class, and pair it with another interface, call it MyExtensionOverrider. MyExtension methods are defined according to this pattern: public static int MyMethod(this MyInterface obj, int arg, bool attemptCast=true) { if (attemptCast && obj is MyExtensionOverrider) { return ((MyExtensionOverrider)obj).MyMethod(arg); } // regular implementation here } The override interface mirrors all of the methods defined in MyExtension, except without the this or attemptCast parameters: public interface MyExtensionOverrider { int MyMethod(int arg); string MyOtherMethod(); } Now, any class can implement the interface and get the default extension functionality: public class MyClass : MyInterface { ... } Anyone that wants to override it with specific implementations can additionally implement the override interface: public class MySpecializedClass : MyInterface, MyExtensionOverrider { public int MyMethod(int arg) { //specialized implementation for one method } public string MyOtherMethod() { // fallback to default for others MyExtension.MyOtherMethod(this, attemptCast: false); } } And there we go: extension methods provided on an interface, with the option of complete extensibility if needed. Fully general too, the interface itself doesn't need to know about the extension / override, and multiple extension / override pairs can be implemented without interfering with each other. I can see three problems with this approach - It's a little bit fragile - the extension methods and override interface have to be kept synchronized manually. It's a little bit ugly - implementing the override interface involves boilerplate for every function you don't want to specialize. It's a little bit slow - there's an extra bool comparison and cast attempt added to the mainline of every method. Still, all those notwithstanding, I think this is the best we can get until there's language support for interface functions. Thoughts?

  Read the article

• Validation without ServiceLocator

  - by Dmitriy Nagirnyak

  Hi, I am getting back again and again to it thinking about the best way to perform validation on POCO objects that need access to some context (ISession in NH, IRepository for example). The only option I still can see is to use S*ervice Locator*, so my validation would look like: public User : ICanValidate { public User() {} // We need this constructor (so no context known) public virtual string Username { get; set; } public IEnumerable<ValidationError> Validate() { if (ServiceLocator.GetService<IUserRepository>().FindUserByUsername(Username) != null) yield return new ValidationError("Username", "User already exists.") } } I already use Inversion Of control and Dependency Injection and really don't like the ServiceLocator due to number of facts: Harder to maintain implicit dependencies. Harder to test the code. Potential threading issues. Explicit dependency only on the ServiceLocator. The code becomes harder to understand. Need to register the ServiceLocator interfaces during the testing. But on the other side, with plain POCO objects, I do not see any other way of performing the validation like above without ServiceLocator and only using IoC/DI. So the question would be: is there any way to use DI/IoC for the situation described above? Thanks, Dmitriy.

  Read the article

• Confused about this factory, as it doesn't look like an Abstract Factory nor Factory Method

  - by Pin

  I'm looking into Guice and I've been reading its documentation recently. Reading the motivation section I don't understand the factories part, why they name it that way. To me that factory is just a wrapper for the implementing class they want it to return after calling getInstance(). public class CreditCardProcessorFactory { private static CreditCardProcessor instance; public static void setInstance(CreditCardProcessor creditCardProcessor) { instance = creditCardProcessor; } public static CreditCardProcessor getInstance() { if (instance == null) { throw new IllegalStateException("CreditCardProcessorFactory not initialized. " + "Did you forget to call CreditCardProcessor.setInstance() ?"); } return instance; } } Why do they call it factory as well if it is neither an abstract factory nor a factory method? Or am I missing something? Thanks.

  Read the article

• ORM market analysis

  - by bonefisher

  I would like to see your experience with popular ORM tools outhere, like NHibernate, LLBLGen, EF, S2Q, Genom-e, LightSpeed, DataObjects.NET, OpenAccess, ... From my exp: - Genom-e is quiet capable of Linq & performance, dev support - EF lacks on some key features like lazy loading, Poco support, pers.ignorance... but in 4.o it may have overcome .. - DataObjects.Net so far good, althrough I found some bugs - NHibernate steep learning curve, no 100% Linq support (like in Genom-e and DataObjects.Net), but very supportive, extensible and mature

  Read the article

• Fluent API Style Usage

  - by Chris Dwyer

  When programming against a fluent API, I've seen the style mostly like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject() .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .SetObjectParameter(paramName, value) .DoSomeTransformation(); What is the reasoning behind putting the dot at the beginning of the line instead of the end of the line like this: var obj = objectFactory.CreateObject(). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). SetObjectParameter(paramName, value). DoSomeTransformation(); Or, is it merely a style thing that a team makes a consensus on?

  Read the article

• Casting functions -- Is it a code smell?

  - by Earlz

  I recently began to start using functions to make casting easier on my fingers for one instance I had something like this ((Dictionary<string,string>)value).Add(foo); and converted it to a tiny little helper function so I can do this ToDictionary(value).Add(foo); Is this a code smell? (also I've marked this language agnostic even though my example is C#)

  Read the article

• Whats the point of STL?

  - by Jonathan D

  I've been programming c++ for about a year now and when i'm looking about i see lots of references to STL. Can some one please tell me what it does? and the advantages and disadvantageous of it? thanks

  Read the article

• How to avoid using this in a contructor

  - by Paralife

  I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

  Read the article

• What version numbering scheme to use?

  - by deamon

  I'm looking for a version numbering scheme that expresses the extent of change, especially compatiblity. Apache APR, for example, use the well known version numbering scheme <major>.<minor>.<patch> example: 4.5.11 Maven suggests a similar but more detailed schema: <major>.<minor>.<patch>-<qualifier>-<build number> example: 4.5.11-RC1-3732 Where is the Maven versioning scheme defined? Are there conventions for qualifier and build number? Probably it is a bad idea to use maven but not to follow the Maven version scheme ... What other version numbering schemes do you know? What scheme would you prefer and why?

  Read the article

• C# integer primary key generation using Entity Framework with local database file (Sdf)

  - by Ronny

  Hello, I'm writing a standalone application and I thought using Entity Framework to store my data. At the moment the application is small so I can use a local database file to get started. The thing is that the local database file doesn't have the ability to auto generate integer primary keys as SQL Server does. Any suggestions how to manage primary keys for entities in a local database file that will be compatible with SQL Server in the future? Thanks, Ronny

  Read the article

• Can a script called by XHR reference $_COOKIE?

  - by Christian Mann

  Quick yes/no - I'm building an AJAX application and some scripts require authentication. Can I read $_COOKIE['username'] and $_COOKIE['password'] on the server if the PHP script was called via XHR, whether that be $.get() or $.post()? Side question: Can it also set cookies? Is that considered "good practice"?

  Read the article

• Advantages of a build server?

  - by CraigS

  I am attempting to convince my colleagues to start using a build server and automated building for our Silverlight application. I have justified it on the grounds that we will catch integration errors more quickly, and will also always have a working dev copy of the system with the latest changes. But some still don't get it. What are the most significant advantages of using a Build Server for your project?

  Read the article

• Removing duplicates without overriding hash method

  - by Javi

  Hello, I have a List which contains a list of objects and I want to remove from this list all the elements which have the same values in two of their attributes. I had though about doing something like this: List<Class1> myList; .... Set<Class1> mySet = new HashSet<Class1>(); mySet.addAll(myList); and overriding hash method in Class1 so it returns a number which depends only in the attributes I want to consider. The problem is that I need to do a different filtering in another part of the application so I can't override hash method in this way (I would need two different hash methods). What's the most efficient way of doing this filtering without overriding hash method? Thanks

  Read the article

• How to implement the activity stream in a social network

  - by Nicolò Martini

  I'm developing my own social network, and I haven't found on the web examples of implementation the stream of users' actions... For example, how to filter actions for each users? How to store the action events? Which data model and object model can I use for the actions stream and for the actions itselves?

  Read the article

• Business Layer Pattern on Rails? MVCL

  - by Fabiano PS

  That is a broad question, and I appreciate no short/dumb asnwers like: "Oh that is the model job, this quest is retarded (period)" PROBLEM Where I work at people created a system over 2 years for managing the manufacture process over demand in the most simplified still broad as possible, involving selling, buying, assemble, The system is coded over Ruby On Rails. The result has been changed lots of times and the result is a mess on callbacks (some are called several times), 200+ models, and fat controllers: Total bad. The QUESTION is, if there is a gem, or pattern designed to handle Rails large app logic? The logic whould be able to fully talk to models (whose only concern would be data format handling and validation) What I EXPECT is to reduce complexity from various controllers, and hard to track callbacks into files with the responsibility to handle a business operation logic. In some cases there is the need to wait for a response, in others, only validation of the input is enough and a bg process would take place. ie: -- Sell some products (need to wait the operation to finish) 1. Set a View able to get the products input 2. Controller gets the product list inputed by employee and call the logic Logic::ExecuteWithResponse('sell', 'products', :prods => @product_list_with_qtt, :when => @date, :employee => current_user() ) This Logic would handle buying order, assemble order, machine schedule, warehouse reservation, and others

  Read the article

• automated email downloading and treading similar messages

  - by Michael

  Okay here it is : I have built an c# console app that downloads email, save attachments , and stores the subject, from, to, body to a MS SQL Database. I use aspNetPOP3 Component to do this. I have build a front end ASP.NET application to search and view the messages. Works great. Next Steps (this is where I need help ): Now I want my users (of the asp.net app) to reply to this message send the email to the originator, and tread any additional replies back and forth on from that original message(like basecamp). This would allow my end user not to have to log-in to a system, they just continue using email (our users can as well). The question is what should I use to determine if messages are related? Subject line I think is a bad approach. I believe the best method i've seen so far is way basecamp does it, but I'm not sure how that is done, here is a real example of the reply to address from a basecamp email (I've changed the host name): [email protected] Basecamp obviously are prefixing the pre-pending a tracking id to the email address, however , when I try this with my mail service, it's rejected. Is this the best approach, is there a way I can accomplish this, is there a better approach, or even a better email component tool? Thanks, Mike

  Read the article

• How to handle BL cache for multiple web applications?

  - by Eran Betzalel

  I recently received a project that contains multiple web applications with no MVC structure. For starters I've created a library (DLL) that will contain the main Business Logic. The problem is with Caching - If I use the current web context cache object than I might end up with duplicate caching (as the web context will be different for every application). I'm currently thinking about implementing a simple caching mechanism with a singleton pattern that will allow the different web sites (aka different application domains) to share their "caching wisdom". I'd like to know what is the best way to solve this problem.

  Read the article

• How to: mirror a staging server from a production server

  - by Zombies

  We want to mirror our current production app server (Oracle Application Server) onto our staging server. As it stands right now, various things are out of sync, and what may work in testing/QA can easily fail in production because of settings/patch/etc inconsistencies. I was thinking what would be best is to clone the entire disk daily and push it onto the staging server... Would this be the best method...?

  Read the article

• jQuery global variable best practice & options?

  - by Kris Krause

  Currently I am working on a legacy web page that uses a ton of javascript, jquery, microsoft client javascript, and other libraries. The bottom line - I cannot rewrite the entire page from scratch as the business cannot justify it. So... it is what it is. Anyway, I need to pollute (I really tried not too) the global namespace with a variable. There are the three options I was thinking - Just store/retrieve it using a normal javascript declaration - var x = 0; Utilize jQuery to store/retrieve the value in a DOM tag - $("body").data("x", 0); Utilize a hidden form field, and set/retrieve the value with jQuery - $("whatever").data("x", 0); What does everyone think? Is there a better way? I looked at the existing pile of code and I do not believe the variable can be scoped in a function.

  Read the article

• Objective C -std=c99 usage

  - by Andy White

  Is there any reason why you shouldn't use the "-std=c99" flag for compiling Objective-C programs on Mac? The one feature in C99 that I really like is the ability to declare variables anywhere in code, rather than just at the top of methods, but does this flag causes any problems or create incompatibilities for iPhone or Cocoa apps?

  Read the article

• where should we send notification for updating many views?

  - by Thanh-Cong Vo

  Hi all, I want to ask about software design. I have a task, the view controller handles UI event for calling a model manger to perform that task. After finishing, the model manager will callback to update the view. There have also other views who care about that task, and also want to update its own view when that task is finished. So I register a Notification for that task in each views. The problem is defining where should I send Notification, in Model manager or in the View who handles event and receives the callback from Model manager? What is better design? Shoud the model care about send this "common" task, or shoud the view? Thanks

  Read the article

• Best practice of parsing RESTful WebService response with Rails

  - by Zeck

  Hi guys, I'm developing a JAX-RS application and it's working fine. Now, I want to develop a web service client application using Rails. And my question is which is the best way to parse a RESTful webservice's response in Rails?

  Read the article

• DRY programming dilemma

  - by fayer

  the situation is like this: im creating a Logger class that can write to a file but the write_to_file() function is in a helper class as a static function. i could call that function but then the Log class would be dependent to the helper class. isn't dependency bad? but if i can let it use a helper function then what is the point of having helper functions? what should one prioritize here: using helper functions and have to include this helper class everywhere (but the other 99 methods wont be useful) or just copy and paste into the Log class (but then if i have done this 100 times and then make a change i have to change in 100 places). share your thoughts and experience!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118  | Next Page >