Search Results

Search found 30111 results on 1205 pages for 'best practices analyzer'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 112/1205 | < Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >

  • Web Server Users - Best Practice

    - by Toby
    I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Web Server Users - Best Practice

    - by Toby
    I was wondering what is considered best practice when several developers/administrators require access to the same web server. Should there be one non-root user with a secure username and password unqiue to the web server which everyone logs in as or should there be a username for each person. I am leaning towards a username for each person to aid in logging etc however then does the same user keep the same credentials over several servers, or should at least their password change depending on the server they are on? Should any non-root user of the system be added to the sudoers file or is it best practice to leave everyone off it and only let root perform certain tasks? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Best practice, or generally best way to set up web-hosting server, permissions, etc.

    - by Jagot
    Hi, I'm about to set up a server upon which a friend and I will be hosting web sites, and I'll be using Debian. I've set up a LAMP solution many times just to using for local testing purposes, but never for actual production use. I was wondering what are the best practices are in terms of setting the server up, in reference specifically to accessing the web root directory. A couple of the options I have seen: Set up a single user account on the server for us both to use and use a virtual host to point to the somewhere in the home directory, e.g. /home/webdev/www. Set each of us up a user account, and grant permissions in some way to /var/www (What would be the best way? Set up a new group?) I want to get this right when I first set this up as there won't be any going back for a while once our first site is up and running. Appreciate any guidance in advance.

    Read the article

  • Virtualhosts - best way of dealing with it?

    - by axqe56
    I'm competent at the basics of Apache, PHP and virtual hosting but have a question about virtual hosting. As far as I'm aware, HOSTS files can only be in one of the following locations: C:/Windows/system32/drivers/etc (varies in older installs, I believe) I don't think it can be put elsewhere for use with Apache, simply for virtual hosts, and the main HOSTS file for blocking sites etc. I heard about PAC files on Uniform Server's website (http://wiki.uniformserver.com/index.php/Virtual_Hosting:_PAC) but they're browser-specific though, aren't they? What's the best way to deal with virtualhosts, other than HOSTS file? My server isn't currently open to the internet yet, but if it is, what's the best way to resolve DNS for my virtualhost domains if it were to become forward-facing (i.e open to the internet)?

    Read the article

  • Best use of new express card on Windows

    - by jckdnk111
    I just bought a 48GB SSD express card for my laptop and I am trying to decide how best to use it. I will be running some sort of virtualization (prob VirtualBox) to test / learn Windows Server administration. I am running Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. I have 4GB of RAM and a 7200 RPM SATA hard disk. The express card will read at 115MB/s and write at 65MB/s. So how best to use this new disk? Readyboost, relocate pagefile, store VM disks, mix / match?

    Read the article

  • Best way to copy large amount of data between partitions

    - by skinp
    I'm looking to transfer data across 2 lv of an HP-UX server. I have a couple of those transfers to do, some of which are mostly binary (Oracle tablespace...) and some others are more text files (logs...). Used data size of the volumes is between 100Gb and 1Tb. Also, I will be changing the block size from 1K to 8K on some of these partitions... Things I'm looking for: Guarantees data integrity Fastest data transfer speed Keeps file ownership and permissions Right now, I've thought about dd, cp and rsync, but I'm not sure on the best one to use and the best way to use them...

    Read the article

  • running commands as other users - best method

    - by linuxrawkstar
    When running commands as other users from the command line, what is recommended best practice? In the past I've used sudo like so: sudo -u username command [args] I've been told (with no specific reasons why) that using sudo for this purpose is wrong. I'd like to know why. Is there some "best way" to accomplish this? For example, I've also used the su command like so: su username - -c "command [args]" I can't imagine why either of these methods would be "bad". Your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Best Linux Distribution [closed]

    - by kamalbhai
    hi I am right now on Windows 7 alongwith a newly bought Dell Laptop .I want to install Linux too . I have been using Ubuntu 10.10 before . now I want to try a different flavour in Linux which has a good audio/video options & is security enhanced . Right now I have the following distributions : Ubuntu 10.10 OpenSuse 11.0 Fedora 13 . among the three mentioned above which might be the best to learn out things n get more close to linux .I am a student & eager to learn a lot of new things .... so which of the above would be the best for me ?

    Read the article

  • WCF Timeout issue - should there even be a socket connection?

    - by stiank81
    I have a .Net application which is split into a client and server side. The communication between them is handled using WCF. I'm not using the automagic service references, but instead I've built the connection manually like described in the Screencast by Miguel Castro. Summarized this means that I create a console application on the server side that holds ServiceHost objects for the different services: var myServiceHost = new System.ServiceModel.ServiceHost(typeof(MyService), new Uri("net.tcp://localhost:8002")); myServiceHost.Open(); And on the client side I have service proxies creating channels using the ChannelFactory: IMyService proxy = new ChannelFactory<IMyService>("MyServiceEndpoint").CreateChannel(); The client and server side share the service contract defined in the interface IMyService. And another advantage is that I get minimal App.config files - without all the autogenerated stuff created through the Service References. Example from client side: <?xml version="1.0"?> <configuration> <system.serviceModel> <client> <endpoint address="net.tcp://localhost:8002/MyEndpoint" binding="netTcpBinding" contract="IMyService" name="MyServiceEndpoint"/> </client> </system.serviceModel> </configuration> So - to my problem. I create the proxy once, and it holds a channel all the way through the application. However, if I leave the application without use for a few minutes the channel has timed out, and I get the following exception: The socket connection was aborted. This could be caused by an error processing your message or a receive timeout being exceeded by the remote host, or an underlying network resource issue. Local socket timeout was '00:00:59.9979998'. How do I prevent this? I'm assuming I need to specify a higher timeout in my configuration? But I don't want it to ever time out. But on the other hand - I don't want a socket connection! Do I need one? Thought I could go connection less with WCF... What's the permanent solution and best practice on solving this? Set timeout to "never".. Create a new channel for each request? I'm assuming there is some overhead creating the channel?.. Increase the timeout to e.g. 5minutes and create new channel if the connection did timeout? Make it connection less somehow? (Without the overhead of creating channels..) Something else...

    Read the article

  • Is Ogre's use of Exceptions a good way of using them?

    - by identitycrisisuk
    I've managed to get through my C++ game programming career so far virtually never touching exceptions but recently I've been working on a project with the Ogre engine and I'm trying to learn properly. I've found a lot of good questions and answers here on the general usage of C++ exceptions but I'd like to get some outside opinions from here on whether Ogre's usage is good and how best to work with them. To start with, quoting from Ogre's documentation of it's own Exception class: OGRE never uses return values to indicate errors. Instead, if an error occurs, an exception is thrown, and this is the object that encapsulates the detail of the problem. The application using OGRE should always ensure that the exceptions are caught, so all OGRE engine functions should occur within a try{} catch(Ogre::Exception& e) {} block. Really? Every single Ogre function could throw an exception and be wrapped in a try/catch block? At present this is handled in our usage of it by a try/catch in main that will show a message box with the exception description before exiting. This can be a bit awkward for debugging though as you don't get a stack trace, just the function that threw the error - more important is the function from our code that called the Ogre function. If it was an assert in Ogre code then it would go straight to the code in the debugger and I'd be able to find out what's going on much easier - I don't know if I'm missing something that would allow me to debug exceptions already? I'm starting to add a few more try/catch blocks in our code now, generally thinking about whether it matters if the Ogre function throws an exception. If it's something that will stop everything working then let the main try/catch handle it and exit the program. If it's not of great importance then catch it just after the function call and let the program continue. One recent example of this was building up a vector of the vertex/fragment program parameters for materials applied to an entity - if a material didn't have any parameters then it would throw an exception, which I caught and then ignored as it didn't need to add to my list of parameters. Does this seem like a reasonable way of dealing with things? Any specific advice for working with Ogre is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • GOTO still considered harmful?

    - by Kyle Cronin
    Everyone is aware of Dijkstra's Letters to the editor: go to statement considered harmful (also here .html transcript and here .pdf) and there has been a formidable push since that time to eschew the goto statement whenever possible. While it's possible to use goto to produce unmaintainable, sprawling code, it nevertheless remains in modern programming languages. Even the advanced continuation control structure in Scheme can be described as a sophisticated goto. What circumstances warrant the use of goto? When is it best to avoid? As a followup question: C provides a pair of functions, setjmp and longjmp, that provide the ability to goto not just within the current stack frame but within any of the calling frames. Should these be considered as dangerous as goto? More dangerous? Dijkstra himself regretted that title, of which he was not responsible for. At the end of EWD1308 (also here .pdf) he wrote: Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth. A well thought out classic paper about this topic, to be matched to that of Dijkstra, is Structured Programming with go to Statements (also here .pdf), by Donald E. Knuth. Reading both helps to reestablish context and a non-dogmatic understanding of the subject. In this paper, Dijkstra's opinion on this case is reported and is even more strong: Donald E. Knuth: I believe that by presenting such a view I am not in fact disagreeing sharply with Dijkstra's ideas, since he recently wrote the following: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"

    Read the article

  • Advice on software / database design to avoid using cursors when updating database

    - by Remnant
    I have a database that logs when an employee has attended a course and when they are next due to attend the course (courses tend to be annual). As an example, the following employee attended course '1' on 1st Jan 2010 and, as the course is annual, is due to attend next on the 1st Jan 2011. As today is 20th May 2010 the course status reads as 'Complete' i.e. they have done the course and do not need to do it again until next year: EmployeeID CourseID AttendanceDate DueDate Status 123456 1 01/01/2010 01/01/2011 Complete In terms of the DueDate I calculate this in SQL when I update the employee's record e.g. DueDate = AttendanceDate + CourseFrequency (I pull course frequency this from a separate table). In my web based app (asp.net mvc) I pull back this data for all employees and display it in a grid like format for HR managers to review. This allows HR to work out who needs to go on courses. The issue I have is as follows. Taking the example above, suppose today is 2nd Jan 2011. In this case, employee 123456 is now overdue for the course and I would like to set the Status to Incomplete so that the HR manager can see that they need to action this i.e. get employee on the course. I could build a trigger in the database to run overnight to update the Status field for all employees based on the current date. From what I have read I would need to use cursors to loop over each row to amend the status and this is considered bad practice / inefficient or at least something to avoid if you can??? Alternatively, I could compute the Status in my C# code after I have pulled back the data from the database and before I display it on screen. The issue with this is that the Status in the database would not necessarily match what is shown on screen which just feels plain wrong to me. Does anybody have any advice on the best practice approach to such an issue? It helps, if I did use a cursor I doubt I would be looping over more than 1000 records at any given time. Maybe this is such small volume that using cursors is okay?

    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

  • In a PHP project, how do you organize and access your helper objects?

    - by Pekka
    How do you organize and manage your helper objects like the database engine, user notification, error handling and so on in a PHP based, object oriented project? Say I have a large PHP CMS. The CMS is organized in various classes. A few examples: the database object user management an API to create/modify/delete items a messaging object to display messages to the end user a context handler that takes you to the right page a navigation bar class that shows buttons a logging object possibly, custom error handling etc. I am dealing with the eternal question, how to best make these objects accessible to each part of the system that needs it. my first apporach, many years ago was to have a $application global that contained initialized instances of these classes. global $application; $application->messageHandler->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); I then changed over to the Singleton pattern and a factory function: $mh =&factory("messageHandler"); $mh->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); but I'm not happy with that either. Unit tests and encapsulation become more and more important to me, and in my understanding the logic behind globals/singletons destroys the basic idea of OOP. Then there is of course the possibility of giving each object a number of pointers to the helper objects it needs, probably the very cleanest, resource-saving and testing-friendly way but I have doubts about the maintainability of this in the long run. Most PHP frameworks I have looked into use either the singleton pattern, or functions that access the initialized objects. Both fine approaches, but as I said I'm happy with neither. I would like to broaden my horizon on what is possible here and what others have done. I am looking for examples, additional ideas and pointers towards resources that discuss this from a long-term, real-world perspective. Also, I'm interested to hear about specialized, niche or plain weird approaches to the issue. Bounty I am following the popular vote in awarding the bounty, the answer which is probably also going to give me the most. Thank you for all your answers!

    Read the article

  • What classes should I map against with NHibernate?

    - by apollodude217
    Currently, we use NHibernate to map business objects to database tables. Said business objects enforce business rules: The set accessors will throw an exception on the spot if the contract for that property is violated. Also, the properties enforce relationships with other objects (sometimes bidirectional!). Well, whenever NHibernate loads an object from the database (e.g. when ISession.Get(id) is called), the set accessors of the mapped properties are used to put the data into the object. What's good is that the middle tier of the application enforces business logic. What's bad is that the database does not. Sometimes crap finds its way into the database. If crap is loaded into the application, it bails (throws an exception). Sometimes it clearly should bail because it cannot do anything, but what if it can continue working? E.g., an admin tool that gathers real-time reports runs a high risk of failing unnecessarily instead of allowing an admin to even fix a (potential) problem. I don't have an example on me right now, but in some instances, letting NHibernate use the "front door" properties that also enforce relationships (especially bidi) leads to bugs. What are the best solutions? Currently, I will, on a per-property basis, create a "back door" just for NHibernate: public virtual int Blah {get {return _Blah;} set {/*enforces BR's*/}} protected virtual int _Blah {get {return blah;} set {blah = value;}} private int blah; I showed the above in C# 2 (no default properties) to demonstrate how this gets us basically 3 layers of, or views, to blah!!! While this certainly works, it does not seem ideal as it requires the BL to provide one (public) interface for the app-at-large, and another (protected) interface for the data access layer. There is an additional problem: To my knowledge, NHibernate does not give you a way to distinguish between the name of the property in the BL and the name of the property in the entity model (i.e. the name you use when you query, e.g. via HQL--whenever you give NHibernate the name (string) of a property). This becomes a problem when, at first, the BR's for some property Blah are no problem, so you refer to it in your O/R mapping... but then later, you have to add some BR's that do become a problem, so then you have to change your O/R mapping to use a new _Blah property, which breaks all existing queries using "Blah" (common problem with programming against strings). Has anyone solved these problems?!

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • How do I create a safe local development environment?

    - by docgnome
    I'm currently doing web development with another developer on a centralized development server. In the past this has worked alright, as we have two separate projects we are working on and rarely conflict. Now, however, we are adding a third (possible) developer into the mix. This is clearly going to create problems with other developers changes affecting my work and vice versa. To solve this problem, I'm thinking the best solution would be to create a virtual machine to distribute between the developers for local use. The problem I have is when it comes to the database. Given that we all develop on laptops, simply keeping a local copy of the live data is plain stupid. I've considered sanitizing the data, but I can't really figure out how to replace the real data, with data that would be representative of what people actually enter with out repeating the same information over and over again, e.g. everyone's address becomes 123 Testing Lane, Test Town, WA, 99999 or something. Is this really something to be concerned about? Are there tools to help with this sort of thing? I'm using MySQL. Ideally, if I sanitized the db it should be done from a script that I can run regularly. If I do this I'd also need a way to reduce the size of the db itself. (I figure I could select all the records created after x and whack them and all the records in corresponding tables out so that isn't really a big deal.) The second solution I've thought of is to encrypt the hard drive of the vm, but I'm unsure of how practical this is in terms of speed and also in the event of a lost/stolen laptop. If I do this, should the vm hard drive file itself be encrypted or should it be encrypted in the vm? (I'm assuming the latter as it would be portable and doesn't require the devs to have any sort of encryption capability on their OS of choice.) The third is to create a copy of the database for each developer on our development server that they are then responsible to keep the schema in sync with the canonical db by means of migration scripts or what have you. This solution seems to be the simplest but doesn't really scale as more developers are added. How do you deal with this problem?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119  | Next Page >