Search Results

Search found 5915 results on 237 pages for 'practices'.

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 115/237 | < Previous Page | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >

  • how can I "force" a branch upon the trunk, in the case I can't "reintegrate"?

    - by davka
    We created a branch from the trunk on which a major refactoring was done. Meanwhile, the trunk advanced a few revisions with some fixes. We don't want these changes on the branch, so we don't want to "catch-up" merge the trunk to the branch, because we don't want to mix the old and new code. But without this I can't reintegrate the branch back to the trunk. Is there a way to impose the branch on the trunk "as-is"? (an idea I considered is to undo ("reverse-merge") the trunk back to the revision where the branch started, and then it is safe to merge it on branch - nothing should happen. Then I can reintegrate. What do you think?) thanks!

    Read the article

  • 'goto' usage

    - by Landon
    I've long been under the impression that 'goto' should never be used if possible. While perusing libavcodec (which is written in C) the other day, I noticed multiple uses of it. Is it ever advantageous to use 'goto' in a language that supports loops and functions? If so, why?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • How to have the controller change its behavior depending on the view?

    - by Ian Boyd
    If from one view a user enters some invalid data, e.g.:     E-mail: [email protected]     then i want the controller to: not place the data into the model color the text box reddish not allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box reddish allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box bluish allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: place the data into the model leave the text box uncolored allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model color the text-box reddish allow the user to have And it's possible for another view to: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model update the view with the new data color the text-box bluish allow the user to save [ad infinitum] Without using n-controllers for n-views, how do i do this?

    Read the article

  • globally get any field value in user table of logged in user

    - by Jugga
    Im making a gaming community and i wanna be able to grab any info of the user on any page without so instead of having much of queries on all pages i made this function. Is it better to do this? Will this slow down the site? /** * ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? authed ?????????????. */ function UserData($f) { global $_SESSION; return mysql_result(mysql_query("SELECT `$f` FROM `users` WHERE `id` = ".intval($_SESSION['id'])), 0, $f); }

    Read the article

  • Zend_Form: Is this really the way we should be doing things?

    - by Francis Daigle
    OK. I understand how to use Zend_Form and it's implementation of the decorator pattern. My question is, is this the best way to be going about creating forms? Shouldn't a documents forms be left to to the front-end rather than generating forms programmatically? Doesn't this kinda violate the whole idea of keeping things separate? I mean, really, even providing that you have a good understanding of the methodology being employed, does it really save one that much time? I guess what I'm looking for is some guidance as to what might be considered 'best practice'. I'm not saying that Zend_Form doesn't have it's place, I'm just wondering if it should be used in all cases (or not). And this has nothing to do with validation. I'm just thinking that something more akin to using the 'ViewScript' approach might be more appropriate in most cases. Your thoughts?

    Read the article

  • sql: DELETE + INSERT vs UPDATE + INSERT

    - by user93422
    A similar question has been asked, but since it always depends, I'm asking for my specific situation separately. I have a web-site page that shows some data that comes from a database, and to generate the data from that database I have to do some fairly complex multiple joins queries. The data is being updated once a day (nightly). I would like to pre-generate the data for the said view to speed up the page access. For that I am creating a table that contains exact data I need. Question: for my situation, is it reasonable to do complete table wipe followed by insert? or should I do update,insert? SQL wise seems like DELETE + INSERT will be easier (it is single SQL expression). EDIT: RDBMS: MS SQL Server 2008 Ent

    Read the article

  • Is it advisable to have an interface as the return type?

    - by wb
    I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface? Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic. protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class { return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success)); } public IMessage Validate() { if (name.Length < 5) { validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater."); } else { validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid."); } return validateReturnType; } Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to open and close window/dialog?

    - by mree
    I'm trying to develop a new program. The work flow looks like this: Login --> Dashboard (Window with menus) --> Module 1 --> Module 2 --> Module 3 --> Module XXX So, to open Dashboard from Login (a Dialog), I use Dashboard *d = new Dashboard(); d->show(); close(); In Dashboard, I use these codes to reopen the Login if the user closes the Window (by clicking the 'X') closeEvent(QCloseEvent *) { Login *login = new Login(); login->show(); } With a Task Manager opened, I ran the program and monitor the memory usage. After clicking open Dashboard from Login and closing Dashboard to return to Login, I noticed that the memory keeps increasing about 500 KB. It can goes up to 20 MB from 12 MB of memory usage by just opening and closing the window/dialog. So, what did I do wrong here ? I need to know it before I continue developing those modules which will definitely eat more memory with my programming. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Rails: Pass association object to the View

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Model Item belongs_to User. In my controller I have code like this: @items = Item.find(:all) I need to have a corresponding User models for each item in my View templates. it works in controller(but not in View template): @items.each { |item| item.user } But manual looping just to build associations for View template kinda smells. How can I do this not in a creepy way?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing directory structure

    - by zachary
    Huge project tons of classes and directories. Do I make my unit test project mirror these directories or do I put them all at the root directory? Somewhat annoying to have to make directory changes and class name changes twice.

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in C++

    - by Yorgos Pagles
    This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

    Read the article

  • Class.Class vs Namespace.Class for top level general use class libraries?

    - by Joan Venge
    Which one is more acceptable (best-practice)?: namespace NP public static class IO public static class Xml ... // extension methods using NP; IO.GetAvailableResources (); vs public static class NP public static class IO public static class Xml ... // extension methods NP.IO.GetAvailableResources (); Also for #2, the code size is managed by having partial classes so each nested class can be in a separate file, same for extension methods (except that there is no nested class for them) I prefer #2, for a couple of reasons like being able to use type names that are already commonly used, like IO, that I don't want to replace or collide. Which one do you prefer? Any pros and cons for each? What's the best practice for this case? EDIT: Also would there be a performance difference between the two?

    Read the article

  • how to get started with TopCoder to update/develop algorithm skills ?

    - by KaluSingh Gabbar
    at workplace, the work I do is hardly near to challenging and doing that I think I might be loosing the skills to look at a completely new problem and think about different ideas to solve it. A friend suggested TopCoder.com to me, but looking at the overwhelming number of problems I can not decide how to get started? what I want is to sharpen my techniques ( not particular language or framework ).

    Read the article

  • android thread management onPause

    - by Kwan Cheng
    I have a class that extends the Thread class and has its run method implemented as so. public void run(){ while(!terminate){ if(paused){ Thread.yield(); }else{ accummulator++; } } } This thread is spawned from the onCreate method. When my UI is hidden (when the Home key is pressed) my onPause method will set the paused flag to true and yield the tread. However in the DDMS I still see the uTime of the thread accumulate and its state as "running". So my question is. What is the proper way to stop the thread so that it does not use up CPU time?

    Read the article

  • Symfony 1.3: Any opinion about this code? Coud be shorter or better?

    - by user248959
    Hi, I need your opinion about this code below. I have a list of messages: each message has a link that change the state of the message (read - non read). In the partial "_message" i have this: <div class="switching_link" id="switching_link_<?php echo $message ?>"> echo include_partial('link_switch_state', array('message' => $message)) </div> In the partial "_link_switch_state" i have this: if((int)$message->getState() == 1) { $string_state_message="non read"; } else { $string_state_message="read"; } echo link_to_remote('Mark as '.$string_state_message, array( 'url' => 'message/switchState?id='.$message->getId(), 'update' => 'switching_link_'.$message, "complete" => "switchClassMessage('$message');", )); And in message/actions/actions.class.php i have this: public function executeSwitchState(sfWebRequest $request) { // searching the message we want to change its state. $this->messages = Doctrine::getTable('Message')->findById($request->getParameter('id')); // changing the state of the message. if($this->messages[0]->getState() == 1) { $this->messages[0]->setState(0); } else { $this->messages[0]->setState(1); } $this->messages[0]->save(); // rendering the partial that shows the link ("Mark as read/non read"). return $this->renderPartial('mensaje/link_switch_state', array( 'message' => $this->messages[0])); } Regards Javi

    Read the article

  • Identifying a class which is extending an abstract class

    - by Simon A. Eugster
    Good Evening, I'm doing a major refactoring of http://wiki2xhtml.sourceforge.net/ to finally get better overview and maintainability. (I started the project when I decided to start programming, so – you get it, right? ;)) At the moment I wonder how to solve the problem I'll describe now: Every file will be put through several parsers (like one for links, one for tables, one for images, etc.): public class WikiLinks extends WikiTask { ... } public class WikiTables extends WikiTask { ... } The files will then be parsed about this way: public void parse() { if (!parse) return; WikiTask task = new WikiLinks(); do { task.parse(this); } while ((task = task.nextTask()) != null); } Sometimes I may want to use no parser at all (for files that only need to be copied), or only a chosen one (e.g. for testing purposes). So before running task.parse() I need to check whether this certain parser is actually necessary/desired. (Perhaps via Blacklist or Whitelist.) What would you suggest for comparing? An ID for each WikiTask (how to do?)? Comparing the task Object itself against a new instance of a WikiTask (overhead)?

    Read the article

  • Java Interfaces Methodology: Should every class implement an interface?

    - by Amir Rachum
    I've been programming in Java for a few courses in the University and I have the following question: Is it methodologically accepted that every class should implement an interface? Is it considered bad practice not to do so? Can you describe a situation where it's not a good idea to use interfaces? Edit: Personally, I like the notion of using Interfaces for everything as a methodology and habit, even if it's not clearly beneficial. Eclipse automatically created a class file with all the methods, so it doesn't waste any time anyway.

    Read the article

  • Correct way to protect a private API key when versioning a python application on a public git repo

    - by systempuntoout
    I would like to open-source a python project on Github but it contains an API key that should not be distributed. I guess there's something better than removing the key each time a "push" is committed to the repo. Imagine a simplified foomodule.py : import urllib2 API_KEY = 'XXXXXXXXX' urllib2.urlopen("http://example.com/foo?id=123%s" % API_KEY ).read() What i'm thinking is: Move the API_KEY in a second key.py module importing it on foomodule.py; i would then add key.py on .gitignore file. Same as 1 but using ConfigParser Do you know a good programmatic way to handle this scenario?

    Read the article

  • White-box testing in Javascript - how to deal with privacy?

    - by Max Shawabkeh
    I'm writing unit tests for a module in a small Javascript application. In order to keep the interface clean, some of the implementation details are closed over by an anonymous function (the usual JS pattern for privacy). However, while testing I need to access/mock/verify the private parts. Most of the tests I've written previously have been in Python, where there are no real private variables (members, identifiers, whatever you want to call them). One simply suggests privacy via a leading underscore for the users, and freely ignores it while testing the code. In statically typed OO languages I suppose one could make private members accessible to tests by converting them to be protected and subclassing the object to be tested. In Javascript, the latter doesn't apply, while the former seems like bad practice. I could always wall back to black box testing and simply check the final results. It's the simplest and cleanest approach, but unfortunately not really detailed enough for my needs. So, is there a standard way of keeping variables private while still retaining some backdoors for testing in Javascript?

    Read the article

  • CSS Brace Styles

    - by Nimbuz
    I'm unable to figure how the standard (or just popular) brace style names apply to CSS. Here're all the brace styles: /* one - pico? */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* two */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } /* three */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* four - Allman or GNU?*/ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; }? /* five */ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* six - horstmann? */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } /* seven - banner?*/ selector { property: value; property: value; } /* eight */ selector { property: value; /* declaration starts on newline */ property: value; } Can someone please name each brace style for me? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Tool to maintain a Data Mapping between two systems

    - by ktaylorjohn
    We have XML interfaces between multiple systems. An Enterprise Domain Model is missing in the overall architecture, hence the terms Product/Customer/User means different things to different systems. We currently use excel sheets to map the elements in incoming XML to what the actual Field means within our system. Additionally, it contains the values of Mandatory/Optional and length of each field. We call this the Data Dictionary. Any changes to the XML go through rounds of deliberation and updates to Word and Excel documents. Is there a better way to do this? Any tool/GUI based approach which all systems and owners can view?

    Read the article

  • Best practice to detect iPhone app only access for web services?

    - by Gaius Parx
    I am developing an iPhone app together with web services. The iPhone app will use GET or POST to retrieve data from the web services such as http://www.myserver.com/api/top10songs.json to get data for top ten songs for example. There is no user account and password for the iPhone app. What is the best practice to ensure that only my iPhone app have access to the web API http://www.myserver.com/api/top10songs.json? iPhone SDK's UIDevice uniqueueIdentifier is not sufficient as anyone can fake the device id as parameter making the API call using wget, curl or web browsers. The web services API will not be published. The data of the web services is not secret and private, I just want to prevent abuse as there are also API to write some data to the server such as usage log.

    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 | 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  | Next Page >