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 >

  • 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

  • One repository per table or one per functional section?

    - by Ian Roke
    I am using ASP.NET MVC 2 and C# with Entity Framework 4.0 to code against a normalised SQL Server database. A part of my database structure contains a table of entries with foreign keys relating to sub-tables containing drivers, cars, engines, chassis etc. I am following the Nerd Dinner tutorial which sets up a repository for dinners which is fair enough. Do I do one for drivers, one for engines, one for cars and so on or do I do one big one for entries? Which is the best practise for this type of work? I am still new to this method of coding.

    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

  • JDBC/OSGi and how to dynamically load drivers without explicitly stating dependencies in the bundle?

    - by Chris
    Hi, This is a biggie. I have a well-structured yet monolithic code base that has a primitive modular architecture (all modules implement interfaces yet share the same classpath). I realize the folly of this approach and the problems it represents when I go to deploy on application servers that may have different conflicting versions of my library. I'm dependent on around 30 jars right now and am mid-way though bnding them up. Now some of my modules are easy to declare the versioned dependencies of, such as my networking components. They statically reference classes within the JRE and other BNDded libraries but my JDBC related components instantiate via Class.forName(...) and can use one of any number of drivers. I am breaking everything up into OSGi bundles by service area. My core classes/interfaces. Reporting related components. Database access related components (via JDBC). etc.... I wish for my code to be able to still be used without OSGi via single jar file with all my dependencies and without OSGi at all (via JARJAR) and also to be modular via the OSGi meta-data and granular bundles with dependency information. How do I configure my bundle and my code so that it can dynamically utilize any driver on the classpath and/or within the OSGi container environment (Felix/Equinox/etc.)? Is there a run-time method to detect if I am running in an OSGi container that is compatible across containers (Felix/Equinox/etc.) ? Do I need to use a different class loading mechanism if I am in a OSGi container? Am I required to import OSGi classes into my project to be able to load an at-bundle-time-unknown JDBC driver via my database module? I also have a second method of obtaining a driver (via JNDI, which is only really applicable when running in an app server), do I need to change my JNDI access code for OSGi-aware app servers?

    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

  • 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

  • R: disentangling scopes

    - by rescdsk
    Hi, Right now, in my R project, I have functions1.R with doFoo() and doBar(), functions2.R with other functions, and main.R with the main program in it, which first does source('functions1.R'); source('functions2.R'), and then calls the other functions. I've been starting the program from the R GUI in Mac OS X, with source('main.R'). This is fine the first time, but after that, the variables that were defined the first time through the program are defined for the second time functions*.R are sourced, and so the functions get a whole bunch of extra variables defined. I don't want that! I want an "undefined variable" error when my function uses a variable it shouldn't! Twice this has given me very late nights of debugging! So how do other people deal with this sort of problem? Is there something like source(), but that makes an independent namespace that doesn't fall through to the main one? Making a package seems like one solution, but it seems like a big pain in the butt compared to e.g. Python, where a source file is automatically a separate namespace. Any tips? Thank you!

    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

  • "do it all" page structure and things to watch out for?

    - by Andrew Heath
    I'm still getting my feet wet in PHP (my 1st language) and I've reached the competency level where I can code one page that handles all sorts of different related requests. They generally have a structure like this: (psuedo code) <?php include 'include/functions.php'; IF authorized IF submit (add data) ELSE IF update (update data) ELSE IF list (show special data) ELSE IF tab switch (show new area) ELSE display vanilla (show default) ELSE "must be registered/logged-in" ?> <HTML> // snip <?php echo $output; ?> // snip </HTML> and it all works nicely, and quite quickly which is cool. But I'm still sorta feeling my way in the dark... and would like some input from the pros regarding this type of page design... is it a good long-term structure? (it seems easily expanded...) are there security risks particular to this design? are there corners I should avoid painting myself into? Just curious about what lies ahead, really...

    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

  • 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

  • "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

  • 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

  • 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

  • .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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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