Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns 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 121/348 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

  • What should a developer know before building a public web site?

    - by Joel Coehoorn
    What things should a programmer implementing the technical details of a web site address before making the site public? If Jeff Atwood can forget about HttpOnly cookies, sitemaps, and cross-site request forgeries all in the same site, what important thing could I be forgetting as well? I'm thinking about this from a web developer's perspective, such that someone else is creating the actual design and content for the site. So while usability and content may be more important than the platform, you the programmer have little say in that. What you do need to worry about is that your implementation of the platform is stable, performs well, is secure, and meets any other business goals (like not cost too much, take too long to build, and rank as well with Google as the content supports). Think of this from the perspective of a developer who's done some work for intranet-type applications in a fairly trusted environment, and is about to have his first shot and putting out a potentially popular site for the entire big bad world wide web. Also: I'm looking for something more specific than just a vague "web standards" response. I mean, HTML, JavaScript, and CSS over HTTP are pretty much a given, especially when I've already specified that you're a professional web developer. So going beyond that, Which standards? In what circumstances, and why? Provide a link to the standard's specification. This question is community wiki, so please feel free to edit that answer to add links to good articles that will help explain or teach each particular point.

    Read the article

  • Common programming mistakes for Scala developers to avoid

    - by jelovirt
    In the spirit of Common programming mistakes for Java developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for JavaScript developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for .NET developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for Haskell developers to avoid? Common programming mistakes for Python developers to avoid? Common Programming Mistakes for Ruby Developers to Avoid Common programming mistakes for PHP developers to avoid? what are some common mistakes made by Scala developers, and how can we avoid them? Also, as the biggest group of new Scala developers come from Java, what specific pitfalls they have to be aware of? For example, one often cited problem Java programmers moving to Scala make is use a procedural approach when a functional one would be more suitable in Scala. What other mistakes e.g. in API design newcomers should try to avoid.

    Read the article

  • Newbie T-SQL dynamic stored procedure -- how can I improve it?

    - by Andy Jones
    I'm new to T-SQL; all my experience is in a completely different database environment (Openedge). I've learned enough to write the procedure below -- but also enough to know that I don't know enough! This routine will have to go into a live environment soon, and it works, but I'm quite certain there are a number of c**k-ups and gotchas in it that I know nothing about. The routine copies data from table A to table B, replacing the data in table B. The tables could be in any database. I plan to call this routine multiple times from another stored procedure. Permissions aren't a problem: the routine will be run by the dba as a timed job. Could I have your suggestions as to how to make it fit best-practice? To bullet-proof it? ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[copyTable2Table] @sdb varchar(30), @stable varchar(30), @tdb varchar(30), @ttable varchar(30), @raiseerror bit = 1, @debug bit = 0 as begin set nocount on declare @source varchar(65) declare @target varchar(65) declare @dropstmt varchar(100) declare @insstmt varchar(100) declare @ErrMsg nvarchar(4000) declare @ErrSeverity int set @source = '[' + @sdb + '].[dbo].[' + @stable + ']' set @target = '[' + @tdb + '].[dbo].[' + @ttable + ']' set @dropStmt = 'drop table ' + @target set @insStmt = 'select * into ' + @target + ' from ' + @source set @errMsg = '' set @errSeverity = 0 if @debug = 1 print('Drop:' + @dropStmt + ' Insert:' + @insStmt) -- drop the target table, copy the source table to the target begin try begin transaction exec(@dropStmt) exec(@insStmt) commit end try begin catch if @@trancount > 0 rollback select @errMsg = error_message(), @errSeverity = error_severity() end catch -- update the log table insert into HHG_system.dbo.copyaudit (copytime, copyuser, source, target, errmsg, errseverity) values( getdate(), user_name(user_id()), @source, @target, @errMsg, @errSeverity) if @debug = 1 print ( 'Message:' + @errMsg + ' Severity:' + convert(Char, @errSeverity) ) -- handle errors, return value if @errMsg <> '' begin if @raiseError = 1 raiserror(@errMsg, @errSeverity, 1) return 1 end return 0 END Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Abstract Factory Using Generics: Is Explicitly Converting a Specified Type to Generic a Bad Practice

    - by Merritt
    The question's title says it all. I like how it fits into the rest of my code, but does it smell? public interface IFoo<T> { T Bar { get; set; } } public class StringFoo : IFoo<string> { public string Bar { get; set; } } public static class FooFactory { public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>() { if (typeof(T) == typeof(string)) { return new StringFoo() as IFoo<T>; } throw new NotImplementedException(); } } UPDATE: this is sort of a duplicate of Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

    Read the article

  • Is there a compelling reason to use quantifiers in Perl regular expressions instead of just repeatin

    - by Morinar
    I was performing a code review for a colleague and he had a regular expression that looked like this: if ($value =~ /^\d\d\d\d$/) { #do stuff } I told him he should change it to: if ($value =~ /^\d{4}$/) { #do stuff } To which he replied that he preferred the first for readability (I find the second more readable, but that's a religious debate I'll save for another day). My question: is there an actual benefit to one over the other?

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - 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

  • Can per-user randomized salts be replaced with iterative hashing?

    - by Chas Emerick
    In the process of building what I'd like to hope is a properly-architected authentication mechanism, I've come across a lot of materials that specify that: user passwords must be salted the salt used should be sufficiently random and generated per-user ...therefore, the salt must be stored with the user record in order to support verification of the user password I wholeheartedly agree with the first and second points, but it seems like there's an easy workaround for the latter. Instead of doing the equivalent of (pseudocode here): salt = random(); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword, salt); Why not use the hash of the username as the salt? This yields a domain of salts that is well-distributed, (roughly) random, and each individual salt is as complex as your salt function provides for. Even better, you don't have to store the salt in the database -- just regenerate it at authentication-time. More pseudocode: salt = hash(username); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword); (Of course, hash in the examples above should be something reasonable, like SHA-512, or some other strong hash.) This seems reasonable to me given what (little) I know of crypto, but the fact that it's a simplification over widely-recommended practice makes me wonder whether there's some obvious reason I've gone astray that I'm not aware of.

    Read the article

  • when to use the abstract factory pattern?

    - by hguser
    Hi: I want to know when we need to use the abstract factory pattern. Here is an example,I want to know if it is necessary. The UML THe above is the abstract factory pattern, it is recommended by my classmate. THe following is myown implemention. I do not think it is necessary to use the pattern. And the following is some core codes: package net; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.HashMap; import java.util.Map; import java.util.Properties; public class Test { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { DaoRepository dr=new DaoRepository(); AbstractDao dao=dr.findDao("sql"); dao.insert(); } } class DaoRepository { Map<String, AbstractDao> daoMap=new HashMap<String, AbstractDao>(); public DaoRepository () throws IOException, InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { Properties p=new Properties(); p.load(DaoRepository.class.getResourceAsStream("Test.properties")); initDaos(p); } public void initDaos(Properties p) throws InstantiationException, IllegalAccessException, ClassNotFoundException { String[] daoarray=p.getProperty("dao").split(","); for(String dao:daoarray) { AbstractDao ad=(AbstractDao)Class.forName(dao).newInstance(); daoMap.put(ad.getID(),ad); } } public AbstractDao findDao(String id) {return daoMap.get(id);} } abstract class AbstractDao { public abstract String getID(); public abstract void insert(); public abstract void update(); } class SqlDao extends AbstractDao { public SqlDao() {} public String getID() {return "sql";} public void insert() {System.out.println("sql insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("sql update");} } class AccessDao extends AbstractDao { public AccessDao() {} public String getID() {return "access";} public void insert() {System.out.println("access insert");} public void update() {System.out.println("access update");} } And the content of the Test.properties is just one line: dao=net.SqlDao,net.SqlDao So any ont can tell me if this suitation is necessary?

    Read the article

  • Factory Method Implementation

    - by cedar715
    I was going through the 'Factory method' pages in SO and had come across this link. And this comment. The example looked as a variant and thought to implement in its original way: to defer instantiation to subclasses... Here is my attempt. Does the following code implements the Factory pattern of the example specified in the link? Please validate and suggest if this has to undergo any re-factoring. public class ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl implements ScheduleTypeFactory { @Override public IScheduleItem createLinearScheduleItem() { return new LinearScheduleItem(); } @Override public IScheduleItem createVODScheduleItem() { return new VODScheduleItem(); } } public class UseScheduleTypeFactory { public enum ScheduleTypeEnum { CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID, BroadbandScheduleTypeID, LinearCableScheduleTypeID, MobileLinearScheduleTypeID } public static IScheduleItem getScheduleItem(ScheduleTypeEnum scheduleType) { IScheduleItem scheduleItem = null; ScheduleTypeFactory scheduleTypeFactory = new ScheduleTypeFactoryImpl(); switch (scheduleType) { case CableOnDemandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case BroadbandScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createVODScheduleItem(); break; case LinearCableScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; case MobileLinearScheduleTypeID: scheduleItem = scheduleTypeFactory.createLinearScheduleItem(); break; default: break; } return scheduleItem; } }

    Read the article

  • Controls added in the designer are null during Page_Load

    - by mwright
    All of the names below are generic and not the actual names used. I have a custom UserControl with a Panel that contains a a couple Labels, both .aspx controls. .aspx: <asp:Panel runat="server"> <asp:Label ID="label1" runat="server"> </asp:Label> </asp:Panel> <asp:Panel runat="server"> <asp:Label ID="label2" runat="server"> </asp:Label> </asp:Panel> Codebehind: private readonly Object object; protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { // These are the lines that are failing // label1 and label2 are null label1.Text = object.Value1; label2.Text = object.Value2; } public ObjectRow(Object objectToDisplay) { object = objectToDisplay; } On another page, in the code behind, I create a new instance of the custom user control. protected void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { CustomControl control = new CustomControl(object); } The user control takes the parameter and attempts to set the labels based off of the object passed in. The labels that it tries to assign the values to are however, null. Is this an ASP.net lifecycle issue that I'm not understanding? My understanding based on the Microsoft ASP.net lifecycle page was that page controls were available after the Page_Initialization. What is the proper way to do this? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Validation with State Pattern for Multi-Page Forms in ASP.NET

    - by philrabin
    I'm trying to implement the state pattern for a multi-page registration form. The data on each page will be accumulated and stored in a session object. Should validation (including service layer calls to the DB) occur on the page level or inside each state class? In other words, should the concrete implementation of IState be concerned with the validation or should it be given a fully populated and valid object? See "EmptyFormState" class below: namespace Example { public class Registrar { private readonly IState formEmptyState; private readonly IState baseInformationComplete; public RegistrarSessionData RegistrarSessionData { get; set;} public Registrar() { RegistrarSessionData = new RegistrarSessionData(); formEmptyState = new EmptyFormState(this); baseInformationComplete = new BasicInfoCompleteState(this); State = formEmptyState; } public IState State { get; set; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { State.SubmitData(data); } public void ProceedToNextStep() { State.ProceedToNextStep(); } } //actual data stored in the session //to be populated by page public class RegistrarSessionData { public string FirstName { get; set; } public string LastName { get; set; } //will include values of all 4 forms } //State Interface public interface IState { void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data); void ProceedToNextStep(); } //Concrete implementation of IState //Beginning state - no data public class EmptyFormState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public EmptyFormState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //Should Validation occur here? //Should each state object contain a validation class? (IValidator ?) //Should this throw an exception? } public void ProceedToNextStep() { registrar.State = new BasicInfoCompleteState(registrar); } } //Next step, will have 4 in total public class BasicInfoCompleteState : IState { private readonly Registrar registrar; public BasicInfoCompleteState(Registrar registrar) { this.registrar = registrar; } public void SubmitData(RegistrarSessionData data) { //etc } public void ProceedToNextStep() { //etc } } }

    Read the article

  • HELP!! Ruby & RoR Resources?

    - by aaroninfidel
    Hello, I've been a PHP Developer for a few years now and I've recently been interested in learning Ruby & Rails but I've found a lot of the resources I've found seem to be dated and not for Rails 2.0 or Ruby 1.8.6 etc... can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm running OSX 10.6 with the default ruby & rails installation. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to avoid debugger?

    - by Gabriel Šcerbák
    I don't like debugging in a debugger, because I think it is often below the abstraction layer of the programming language and it is often not reproducible. I favor usign unit tests when possible and I think they are a good way, but it is not always that easy to implement them. Do you know about any other alternative approaches to avoid the use of debugger?

    Read the article

  • Java 'Prototype' pattern - new vs clone vs class.newInstance

    - by Guillaume
    In my project there are some 'Prototype' factories that create instances by cloning a final private instance. The author of those factories says that this pattern provides better performance than calling 'new' operator. Using google to get some clues about that, I've found nothing really relevant about that. Here is a small excerpt found in a javdoc from an unknown project javdoc from an unknown project Sadly, clone() is rather slower than calling new. However it is a lot faster than calling java.lang.Class.newInstance(), and somewhat faster than rolling our own "cloner" method. For me it's looking like an old best practice of the java 1.1 time. Does someone know more about this ? Is this a good practice to use that with 'modern' jvm ?

    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 | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >