Search Results

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

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

  • 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

  • "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

  • Which Code Should Go Where in MVC Structure

    - by Oguz
    My problem is in somewhere between model and controller.Everything works perfect for me when I use MVC just for crud (create, read, update, delete).I have separate models for each database table .I access these models from controller , to crud them . For example , in contacts application,I have actions (create, read, update, delete) in controller(contact) to use model's (contact) methods (create, read, update, delete). The problem starts when I try to do something more complicated. There are some complex processes which I do not know where should I put them. For example , in registering user process. I can not just finish this process in user model because , I have to use other models too (sending mails , creating other records for user via other models) and do lots of complex validations via other models. For example , in some complex searching processes , I have to access lots of models (articles, videos, images etc.) Or, sometimes , I have to use apis to decide what I will do next or which database model I will use to record data So where is the place to do this complicated processes. I do not want to do them in controllers , Because sometimes I should use these processes in other controllers too. And I do not want to put these process in models because , I use models as database access layers .May be I am wrong,I want to know . Thank you for your answer .

    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

  • 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

  • Alternatives to using web.config to store settings (for complex solutions)

    - by Brian MacKay
    In our web applications, we seperate our Data Access Layers out into their own projects. This creates some problems related to settings. Because the DAL will eventually need to be consumed from perhaps more than one application, web.config does not seem like a good place to keep the connection strings and some of the other DAL-related settings. To solve this, on some of our recent projects we introduced a third project just for settings. We put the setting in a system of .Setting files... With a simple wrapper, the ability to have different settings for various enviroments (Dev, QA, Staging, Production, etc) was easy to achieve. The only problem there is that the settings project (including the .Settings class) compiles into an assembly, so you can't change it without doing a build/deployment, and some of our customers want to be able to configure their projects without Visual Studio. So, is there a best practice for this? I have that sense that I'm reinventing the wheel. Some solutions such as storing settings in a fixed directory on the server in, say, our own XML format occurred to us. But again, I would rather avoid having to re-create encryption for sensitive values and so on. And I would rather keep the solution self-contained if possible. EDIT: The original question did not contain the really penetrating reason that we can't (I think) use web.config ... That puts a few (very good) answers out of context, my bad.

    Read the article

  • .Net4 ConcurrentDictionary: Tips & Tricks

    - by SDReyes
    Hi guys, I started to use the new ConcurrentDictionary from .Net4 yesterday to implement a simple caching for a threading project. But I'm wondering what I have to take care of/be careful about when using it? What have been your experiences using it?

    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

  • Separation of concerns and authentication

    - by Tom Gilder
    I'm trying to be a Good Developer and separate my concerns out. I've got an ASP.NET MVC project with all my web code, and a DAL project with all the model code. Sometimes code in the DAL needs to check if the current user is authorized to perform some actions, by checking something like CurrentUser.IsAdmin. For the web site, the current is derived from the Windows username (from HttpContext.Current.User.Identity), but this is clearly a web concern and shouldn't be coupled to the DAL. What's the best pattern to loosely couple the authentication? Should the DAL be asking the MVC code for a username, or the MVC be telling the DAL? Are there advantages or disadvantages to one or the other? Thank you!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Which is better Java programming practice for looping up to an int value: a converted for-each loop

    - by Arvanem
    Hi folks, Given the need to loop up to an arbitrary int value, is it better programming practice to convert the value into an array and for-each the array, or just use a traditional for loop? FYI, I am calculating the number of 5 and 6 results ("hits") in multiple throws of 6-sided dice. My arbitrary int value is the dicePool which represents the number of multiple throws. As I understand it, there are two options: Convert the dicePool into an array and for-each the array: public int calcHits(int dicePool) { int[] dp = new int[dicePool]; for (Integer a : dp) { // call throwDice method } } Use a traditional for loop. public int calcHits(int dicePool) { for (int i = 0; i < dicePool; i++) { // call throwDice method } } I apologise for the poor presentation of the code above (for some reason the code button on the Ask Question page is not doing what it should). My view is that option 1 is clumsy code and involves unnecessary creation of an array, even though the for-each loop is more efficient than the traditional for loop in Option 2. Thanks in advance for any suggestions you might have.

    Read the article

  • Security implications of writing files using PHP

    - by susmits
    I'm currently trying to create a CMS using PHP, purely in the interest of education. I want the administrators to be able to create content, which will be parsed and saved on the server storage in pure HTML form to avoid the overhead that executing PHP script would incur. Unfortunately, I could only think of a few ways of doing so: Setting write permission on every directory where the CMS should want to write a file. This sounds like quite a bad idea. Setting write permissions on a single cached directory. A PHP script could then include or fopen/fread/echo the content from a file in the cached directory at request-time. This could perhaps be carried out in a Mediawiki-esque fashion: something like index.php?page=xyz could read and echo content from cached/xyz.html at runtime. However, I'll need to ensure the sanity of $_GET['page'] to prevent nasty variations like index.php?page=http://www.bad-site.org/malicious-script.js. I'm personally not too thrilled by the second idea, but the first one sounds very insecure. Could someone please suggest a good way of getting this done?

    Read the article

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