Search Results

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

Page 121/348 | < Previous Page | 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • advice on working on remote asp.net applications

    - by Jonesy
    Hi folks, I'm a (relatively new) developer using asp.net with VB.NET. Currently all my applications are developed on my PC and then are built and moved onto the web server. I'm going to be working remotely for 3 months in which time I'll be connecting to the company network via VPN. What is the best way to access my projects? I need to have the projects stored on the company network so that others can access them too. So simply copying the projects to my laptop, working on them, then copying them back won't suffice. I tried to just open the projects off of the network share but am getting application trust problems. I'm just wondering what other developers do in this situation? Jonesy

    Read the article

  • Perform Grouping of Resultsets in Code, not on Database Level

    - by NinjaBomb
    Stackoverflowers, I have a resultset from a SQL query in the form of: Category Column2 Column3 A 2 3.50 A 3 2 B 3 2 B 1 5 ... I need to group the resultset based on the Category column and sum the values for Column2 and Column3. I have to do it in code because I cannot perform the grouping in the SQL query that gets the data due to the complexity of the query (long story). This grouped data will then be displayed in a table. I have it working for specific set of values in the Category column, but I would like a solution that would handle any possible values that appear in the Category column. I know there has to be a straightforward, efficient way to do it but I cannot wrap my head around it right now. How would you accomplish it? EDIT I have attempted to group the result in SQL using the exact same grouping query suggested by Thomas Levesque and both times our entire RDBMS crashed trying to process the query. I was under the impression that Linq was not available until .NET 3.5. This is a .NET 2.0 web application so I did not think it was an option. Am I wrong in thinking that? EDIT Starting a bounty because I believe this would be a good technique to have in the toolbox to use no matter where the different resultsets are coming from. I believe knowing the most concise way to group any 2 somewhat similar sets of data in code (without .NET LINQ) would be beneficial to more people than just me.

    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

  • Which design pattern to manage windows?

    - by Lu Lu
    Hello, I am using .NET 2.0 & C# to develop a WinForm Mdi application. It will have a Main Window and a lot of mdi windows. I am thinking I should use which design pattern to manage mdi windows. Because I want only one instance for each window, if window is existed, I will show it on top, & otherwise I will create and show it. Note: a mdi window is opened from Menus of Main Window or open from another mdi window. An example is very good. Update: Menu's status is depended on mdi window's status. Ex: If Window 'A' is openned - menu 'A' - disabled. When window 'A' is closed - I update menu 'A' status to Enabled. Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Revision histories and documenting changes

    - by jasonline
    I work on legacy systems and I used to see revision history of files or functions being modified every release in the source code, for example: // // Rev. No Date Author Description // ------------------------------------------------------- // 1.0 2009/12/01 johnc <Some description> // 1.1 2009/12/24 daveb <Some description> // ------------------------------------------------------- void Logger::initialize() { // a = b; // Old code, just commented and not deleted a = b + c; // New code } I'm just wondering if this way of documenting history is still being practiced by many today? If yes, how do you apply modifications on the source code - do you comment it or delete it completely? If not, what's the best way to document these revisions? If you use version control systems, does it follow that your source files contain pure source codes, except for comments when necessary (no revision history for each function, etc.)?

    Read the article

  • Throwing exception vs returning null value with switch statement

    - by Greg
    So I have function that formats a date to coerce to given enum DateType{CURRENT, START, END} what would be the best way to handling return value with cases that use switch statement public static String format(Date date, DateType datetype) { ..validation checks switch(datetype){ case CURRENT:{ return getFormattedDate(date, "yyyy-MM-dd hh:mm:ss"); } ... default:throw new ("Something strange happend"); } } OR throw excpetion at the end public static String format(Date date, DateType datetype) { ..validation checks switch(datetype){ case CURRENT:{ return getFormattedDate(date, "yyyy-MM-dd hh:mm:ss"); } ... } //It will never reach here, just to make compiler happy throw new IllegalArgumentException("Something strange happend"); } OR return null public static String format(Date date, DateType datetype) { ..validation checks switch(datetype){ case CURRENT:{ return getFormattedDate(date, "yyyy-MM-dd hh:mm:ss"); } ... } return null; } What would be the best practice here ? Also all the enum values will be handled in the case statement

    Read the article

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