Search Results

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

Page 122/348 | < Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Database Replication OOD Pattern

    - by MrOnigiri
    Greetings fellow overflowers, After reading on MSDN about correct strategies on how to perform database replication, and understanding their suggestion on Master-Subordinate Incremental Replication. It left me wondering, what OOD design pattern should I use on this... The main elements of this strategy are the Acquirer, the Manipulator and the Writer. The first fetches data from the database and passes on to the second which might perform simple transformations to the data, before handling it to the final element, the writer, that writes the desired data on the destination Database. I thought about using the Chain of Responsibility pattern, but the Acquirer, Manipulator and Writer don't share a common role among theme, so It makes no sense. Should these elements be written as separate classes, or methods inside my service? Of course I'll be creating a DB Helper class as well, but that doesn't constitutes a problem. Wondering what your opinions on this are! Thanks for your replies

    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

  • 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

  • Standardizing a Release/Tools group on a specific language

    - by grahzny
    I'm part of a six-member build and release team for an embedded software company. We also support a lot of developer tools, such as Atlassian's Fisheye, Jira, etc., Perforce, Bugzilla, AnthillPro, and a couple of homebrew tools (like my Django release notes generator). Most of the time, our team just writes little plugins for larger apps (ex: customize workflows in Anthill), long-term utility scripts (package up a release for QA), or things like Perforce triggers (don't let people check into a specific branch unless their change description includes a bug number; authenticate against Active Directory instead of Perforce's internal passwords). That's about the scale of our problems, although we sometimes tackle something slightly more sizable. My boss, who is reasonably technical, has asked us to standardize on one or two languages so we can more easily substitute for each other. He's advocating bash scripts and Perl, due to their universality and simplicity. I can see his point--we mostly do "glue", so why not use "glue" languages rather than saddle ourselves with something designed for much larger projects? Since some of the tools we work with are Java-based, we do need to use something that speaks JVM sometimes. (The path of least resistance for these projects is BeanShell and Groovy.) I feel a tremendous itch toward language advocacy, but I'm trying to avoid saying "We should use Python 'cause I like it and Perl is gross." Instead, I'm trying to come up with a good approach to defining our problem set: what problems do we solve with scripts? Would we benefit from a library of common functions by our team, or are most of our projects more isolated? What is it reasonable to expect my co-workers to learn? What languages give us the most ease of development and ease of modification? Can you folks suggest some useful ways to approach this problem, both for my own thinking process and to help me facilitate some brainstorming among my coworkers?

    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

  • Is ASP.NET MVC is really MVC? Or how to separate model from controller?

    - by Andrey
    Hi all, This question is a bit rhetorical. At some point i got a feeling that ASP.NET MVC is not that authentic implementation of MVC pattern. Or i didn't understood it. Consider following domain: electric bulb, switch and motion detector. They are connected together and when you enter the room motion detector switches on the bulb. If i want to represent them as MVC: switch is model, because it holds the state and contains logic bulb is view, because it presents the state of model to human motion detector is controller, because it converts user actions to generic model commands Switch has one private field (On/Off) as a State and two methods (PressOn, PressOff). If you call PressOn when it is Off it goes to On, if you call it again state doesn't change. Bulb can be replaced with buzzer, motion detector with timer or button, but the model still represent the same logic. Eventually system will have same behavior. This is how i understand classical MVC decomposition, please correct me if i am wrong. Now let's decompose it in ASP.Net MVC way. Bulb is still a view Controller will be switch + motion detector Model is some object that will just pass state to bulb. So the logic that defines behavior moves to controller. Question 1: Is my understanding of MVC and ASP.NET MVC correct? Question 2: If yes, do you agree that ASP.NET MVC is not 100% accurate implementation? And back to life. The final question is how to separate model from controller in case of ASP.NET MVC. There can be two extremes. Controller does basic stuff and call model to do all the logic. Another is controller does all the logic and model is just something like class with properties that is mapped to DB. Question 3: Where should i draw the line between this extremes? How to balance? Thanks, Andrey

    Read the article

  • Is using the Class instance as a Map key a best practice?

    - by Pangea
    I have read somewhere that using the class instances as below is not a good idea as they might cause memory leaks. Can someone tell me if if that is a valid statement? Or are they any problems using it this way? Map<Class<?>,String> classToInstance=new HashMap(); classToInstanceMap.put(String.class,"Test obj");

    Read the article

  • Java operator overloading

    - by nimcap
    Not using operators makes my code obscure. (aNumber / aNother) * count is better than aNumber.divideBy(aNother).times(count) After 6 months of not writing a single comment I had to write a comment to the simple operation above. Usually I refactor until I don't need comment. And this made me realize that it is easier to read and perceive math symbols and numbers than their written forms. For example TWENTY_THOUSAND_THIRTEEN.plus(FORTY_TWO.times(TWO_HUNDERED_SIXTY_ONE)) is more obscure than 20013 + 42*261 So do you know a way to get rid of obscurity while not using operator overloading in Java? Update: I did not think my exaggeration on comments would cause such trouble to me. I am admitting that I needed to write comment a couple of times in 6 months. But not more than 10 lines in total. Sorry for that. Update 2: Another example: budget.plus(bonusCoefficient.times(points)) is more obscure than budget + bonusCoefficient * points I have to stop and think on the first one, at first sight it looks like clutter of words, on the other hand, I get the meaning at first look for the second one, it is very clear and neat. I know this cannot be achieved in Java but I wanted to hear some ideas about my alternatives.

    Read the article

  • VB Classes Best Practice - give all properties values?

    - by Becky Franklin
    Sorry if this is a bit random, but is it good practice to give all fields of a class a value when the class is instanciated? I'm just wondering if its better practice to have a constuctor that takes no parameters and gives all the fields default values, or whether fields that have values should be assigned and others left alone until required? I hope that makes sense, Becky

    Read the article

  • Best practice for DAO pattern ?

    - by Tony
    I've seen a lot of codes use a service-dao pattern , I don't know the origin of this pattern . It force the front layer call service , then delegates some of the service task to dao. I want to ask : Does DAO layer do purely data access related task ? What about exception encapsulation ? Is there other pattern can be used to replace this ?

    Read the article

  • How to create custom javadoc tags

    - by Carlucho
    How to create custom javadoc tags such as @pre / @post... I found some links that explain it but i haven had luck with them, i dont know if that am already tired but i can figure where to put it. these are some of the links http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/3085991/Javadoc-Programming.html http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/tooldocs/windows/javadoc.html I'm sorry to ask to be spoon fed but am at the stage where i only see black dots on the screen :\ Thanks a bunch

    Read the article

  • How to insert an Array/Objet into SQL (bestpractice)

    - by Jason
    I need to store three items as an array in a single column and be able to quickly/easily modify that data in later functions. [---YOU CAN SKIP THIS PART IF YOU TRUST ME--] To be clear, I love and use x_ref tables all the time but an x_ref doesn't work here because this is not a one-to-many relationship. I am making a project management tool that among other things, assigns a user to a project and assigns hours to that project on a weekly basis, per user, sometimes for weeks many weeks into the future. Of course there are many projects, a project can have many team members, a team member can be involved with many projects at one time BUT its not one-to-many because a team member can be working many weeks on the same project but have different hours for different weeks. In other words, each object really is unique. Also/finally, this data can be changed at any time by any team-member - hence it needs to be easily to manipulate. Basically, I need to handle three values (the team member, the week we're talking about, and how many hours) dropped into a project row in the projects table (under the column for project team members) and treated as one item - a team member - that will actually be part of a larger array of all the team members involved on the project. [--END SKIP, START READING HERE :) --] So assuming that the application's general schema and relation tables aren't total crap and that we are in fact up against a wall in this one case to use an array/object as a value for this column, is there a best practice for that? Like a particular SQL data-type? A particular object/array format? CSV? JSON? XML? Most of the app is in C# but (for very odd reasons that I won't explain) we could really use any environment if there is a particular one that handles this well. For the moment, I am thinking either (webservice + JS/JSON) or PHP unserialize/serialize (but I am bit sketched out by the PHP solution because it seems a bit cumbersome when using ajax?) Thoughts anyone?

    Read the article

  • "Nearly divisible"

    - by bobobobo
    I want to check if a floating point value is "nearly" a multiple of 32. E.g. 64.1 is "nearly" divisible by 32, and so is 63.9. Right now I'm doing this: #define NEARLY_DIVISIBLE 0.1f float offset = fmodf( val, 32.0f ) ; if( offset < NEARLY_DIVISIBLE ) { // its near from above } // if it was 63.9, then the remainder would be large, so add some then and check again else if( fmodf( val + 2*NEARLY_DIVISIBLE, 32.0f ) < NEARLY_DIVISIBLE ) { // its near from below } Got a better way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

    - by huntaub
    So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Showing response time in a rails app.

    - by anshul
    I want to display a This page took x seconds widget at the bottom of every page in my rails application. I would like x to reflect the approximate amount of time the request spent on my server. What is the usual way this is done in Rails?

    Read the article

  • How does this code break the Law of Demeter?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    The following code breaks the Law of Demeter: public class Student extends Person { private Grades grades; public Student() { } /** Must never return null; throw an appropriately named exception, instead. */ private synchronized Grades getGrades() throws GradesException { if( this.grades == null ) { this.grades = createGrades(); } return this.grades; } /** Create a new instance of grades for this student. */ protected Grades createGrades() throws GradesException { // Reads the grades from the database, if needed. // return new Grades(); } /** Answers if this student was graded by a teacher with the given name. */ public boolean isTeacher( int year, String name ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // The method only knows about Teacher instances. // return getTeacher( year ).nameEquals( name ); } private Grades getGradesForYear( int year ) throws GradesException { // The method only knows about Grades instances. // return getGrades().getForYear( year ); } private Teacher getTeacher( int year ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // This method knows about Grades and Teacher instances. A mistake? // return getGradesForYear( year ).getTeacher(); } } public class Teacher extends Person { public Teacher() { } /** * This method will take into consideration first name, * last name, middle initial, case sensitivity, and * eventually it could answer true to wild cards and * regular expressions. */ public boolean nameEquals( String name ) { return getName().equalsIgnoreCase( name ); } /** Never returns null. */ private synchronized String getName() { if( this.name == null ) { this.name == ""; } return this.name; } } Questions How is the LoD broken? Where is the code breaking the LoD? How should the code be written to uphold the LoD?

    Read the article

  • Saving a reference to a int.

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    Here is a much simplified version of what I am trying to do static void Main(string[] args) { int test = 0; int test2 = 0; Test A = new Test(ref test); Test B = new Test(ref test); Test C = new Test(ref test2); A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 B.write(); //Writes 1 should write 2 C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 Console.ReadLine(); } class Test { int _a; public Test(ref int a) { _a = a; //I loose the reference here } public void write() { var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _a); Console.WriteLine(b); } } In my real code I have a int that will be incremented by many threads however where the threads a called it will not be easy to pass it the parameter that points it at the int(In the real code this is happening inside a IEnumerator). So a requirement is the reference must be made in the constructor. Also not all threads will be pointing at the same single base int so I can not use a global static int either. I know I can just box the int inside a class and pass the class around but I wanted to know if that is the correct way of doing something like this? What I think could be the correct way: static void Main(string[] args) { Holder holder = new Holder(0); Holder holder2 = new Holder(0); Test A = new Test(holder); Test B = new Test(holder); Test C = new Test(holder2); A.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 B.write(); //Writes 2 should write 2 C.write(); //Writes 1 should write 1 Console.ReadLine(); } class Holder { public Holder(int i) { num = i; } public int num; } class Test { Holder _holder; public Test(Holder holder) { _holder = holder; } public void write() { var b = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref _holder.num); Console.WriteLine(b); } } Is there a better way than this?

    Read the article

  • Is it good practice to call module functions directly in VB.NET?

    - by froadie
    I have a Util module in my VB.NET program that has project-wide methods such as logging and property parsing. The general practice where I work seems to be to call these methods directly without prefixing them with Util. When I was new to VB, it took me a while to figure out where these methods/functions were coming from. As I use my own Util methods now, I can't help thinking that it's a lot clearer and more understandable to add Util. before each method call (you know immediately that it's user-defined but not within the current class, and where to find it), and is hardly even longer. What's the general practice when calling procedures/functions of VB modules? Should we prefix them with the module name or not?

    Read the article

  • Why is it preferable to call a static method statically from within an instance of the method's clas

    - by javanix
    If I create an instance of a class in Java, why is it preferable to call a static method of that same class statically, rather than using this.method()? I get a warning from Eclipse when I try to call static method staticMethod() from within the custom class's constructor via this.staticMethod(). public MyClass() { this.staticMethod(); } vs public MyClass() { MyClass.staticMethod(); } Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing to do? It seems to me like the compiler should already have allocated an instance of the object, so statically allocating memory would be unneeded overhead.

    Read the article

  • How to design this class hierarchy?

    - by devoured elysium
    I have defined an Event class: Event and all the following classes inherit from Event: AEvent BEvent CEvent DEvent Now, with the info I gather from all these Event classes, I will make a chart. With AEvent and BEvent, I will generate points for that chart, while with CEvent and DEvent I will paint certain regions of the chart. Now, how should I signal this in my class hierarchy? Should I make AEvent and BEvent inherit from PointEvent while CEvent and DEvent inherit from RegionEvent, being that both RegionEvent and PointEvent inherit from Event? Should I add a field with an Enum to Event with 2 values, Point and Region, and each of the child classes set their value to it? Should I use some kind of pattern here? Which one? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Design Question on when to save

    - by Ben
    Hi, I was just after peoples opinion on when the best time to save an object (or collection of objects) is. I appreciate that it can be completely dependent on the situation that you are in but here is my situation. I have a collection of objects "MyCollection" in a grid. You can open each object "MyObject" in an editor dialogue by double clicking on the grid. Selecting "Cancel" on the dialogue will back out any changes you have made, but should selecting "ok" commit those changes back to the database, or should they commit the changes on that object back to the collection and have a save method that iterates through the collection and saves all changed objects? If i have an object "MyParentObject", that contains a collection of childen "MyChildObjectCollection", none of the changes made to each "MyChildObject" would be commited to the database until the "MyParentObject" was saved - this makes sense. However in my current situation, none of the objects in the collection are linked, therefore should the "Ok" on the dialogue commit the changes to the database? Appreciate any opinions on this. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129  | Next Page >