Search Results

Search found 10115 results on 405 pages for 'coding practices'.

Page 127/405 | < Previous Page | 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134  | Next Page >

• Best ways to reuse Java methods

  - by carillonator

  I'm learning Java and OOP, and have been doing the problems at Project Euler for practice (awesome site btw). I find myself doing many of the same things over and over, like: checking if an integer is prime/generating primes generating the Fibonacci series checking if a number is a palindrome What is the best way to store and call these methods? Should I write a utility class and then import it? If so, do I import a .class file or the .java source? I'm working from a plain text editor and the Mac terminal. Thanks!

  Read the article

• how should i create my own 'now' / DateTime.Now ?

  - by Michel

  Hi all, i'm starting to build a part of a system which will hold a lot of DateTime validations, and a lot of 'if it was done before now' or 'if it will start in an hour etc'. Usual way to go is to use DateTime.Now to get the actual time. I predict however, that during unit test that will give me a real headache because i will have to setup my testdata for the time when the test will run in stead of use a default set of test data. So i thought: why not use my own 'now' so i can set the current datetime to any moment in time. As i don't want to set the testservers internal clock i was thinking about this solution, and i was wondering what you think of it. Base thought is that i use my own DateTime class. That class gives you the current datetime, but you can also set your own time from outside. public static class MyDateTime { private static TimeSpan _TimeDifference = TimeSpan.Zero; public static DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now + _TimeDifference; } } public static void SetNewNow(DateTime newNow) { _TimeDifference = newNow - DateTime.Now; } public static void AddToRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan ) { _TimeDifference = timeSpan; } public static void SubtractFromRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan) { _TimeDifference = - timeSpan; } }

  Read the article

• Error handling inside or out of class?

  - by Rin

  Usually I do all what I can inside a class, in every method (try and catch). Am I doing it wrong? Recently I heard better way is handle error in program body... What is good habit?

  Read the article

• The Java interface doesn't declare any exception. How to manage checked exception of the implementat

  - by Frór

  Let's say I have the following Java interface that I may not modify: public interface MyInterface { public void doSomething(); } And now the class implementing it is like this: class MyImplementation implements MyInterface { public void doSomething() { try { // read file } catch (IOException e) { // what to do? } } } I can't recover from not reading the file. A subclass of RuntimeException can clearly help me, but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do: the problem is that that exception would then not be documented in the class and a user of the class would possibly get that exception an know nothing about solving this. What can I do?

  Read the article

• Wait For Return Key Press Using Java Scanner

  - by Gordon

  What would be the best way to wait for a return key press from the user using the Java Scanner Class? In a command line tool I would like the user to confirm before carrying out an action. Please correct me if there a more standard way of doing this in a command line tool.

  Read the article

• Storing "derived" values vs calculating them on extraction

  - by kemp

  When you have values which only depends on one or more other fields +/- constants (say retail price & discount price), is it better to store those values too or to calculate them "on the fly" when retrieving the data?

  Read the article

• Same project...multiple apps?

  - by greypoint

  We have a an iPhone app project that we wish to deploy multiple times under different client names. The individual apps will be very similar but will have different resources (icon, images etc) and config settings stored in plists (server names, options etc). What is the preferred means to manage this in Xcode? Obviously we really don't want different XCode projects for each App deployment since it's 90% shared code.

  Read the article

• Are protected constructors considered good practice?

  - by Álvaro G. Vicario

  I'm writing some little helper classes to handle trees. Basically, I have a node and a special root node that represents the tree. I want to keep it generic and simple. This is part of the code: <?php class Tree extends TreeNode{ public function addById($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ if( $parent = $this->findNodeById($parent_id) ){ $parent->addChildById($node_id, $generic_content); } } } class TreeNode{ public function __construct($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ // ... } protected function addChildById($node_id, $generic_content){ $this->children[] = new TreeNode($this->node_id, $node_id, $generic_content); } } $Categories = new Tree; $Categories->addById(1, NULL, $foo); $Categories->addById(2, NULL, $bar); $Categories->addById(3, 1, $gee); ?> My questions: Is it sensible to force TreeNode instances to be created through TreeNode::addById()? If it's so, would it be good practise to declare TreeNode::__construct() as private/protected?

  Read the article

• Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

  - by Mat Nadrofsky

  Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

  Read the article

• Is "for(;;)" faster than "while (TRUE)"? If not, why do people use it?

  - by Chris Cooper

  for (;;) { //Something to be done repeatedly } I have seen this sort of thing used a lot, but I think it is rather strange... Wouldn't it be much clearer to say while (TRUE), or something along those lines? I'm guessing that (as is the reason for many-a-programmer to resort to cryptic code) this is a tiny margin faster? Why, and is it REALLY worth it? If so, why not just define it this way: #DEFINE while(TRUE) for(;;)

  Read the article

• Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  - by Itay Moav

  Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  Read the article

• How should I architect JasperReports with a PHP front+backend system

  - by Itay Moav

  Our system is written completely in PHP. For various business reasons (which are a given) I need to build the reports of the system using JasperReports. What architecture should I use? Should I put the Jasper as a stand alone server (if possible) and let the php query against it, should I have it generate the reports with a cron, and then let the PHP scoop up the files and send them to the web client/browser...

  Read the article

• Being pressured to GOTO the dark-side

  - by Dan McG

  We have a situation at work where developers working on a legacy (core) system are being pressured into using GOTO statements when adding new features into existing code that is already infected with spagetti code. Now, I understand there may be arguments for using 'just one little GOTO' instead of spending the time on refactoring to a more maintainable solution. The issue is, this isolated 'just one little GOTO' isn't so isolated. At least once every week or so there is a new 'one little GOTO' to add. This codebase is already a horror to work with due to code dating back to or before 1984 being riddled with GOTOs that would make many Pastafarians believe it was inspired by the Flying Spagetti Monster itself. Unfortunately the language this is written in doesn't have any ready made refactoring tools, so it makes it harder to push the 'Refactor to increase productivity later' because short-term wins are the only wins paid attention to here... Has anyone else experienced this issue whereby everybody agrees that we cannot be adding new GOTOs to jump 2000 lines to a random section, but continually have Anaylsts insist on doing it just this one time and having management approve it? tldr; How can one go about addressing the issue of developers being pressured (forced) to continually add GOTO statements (by add, I mean add to jump to random sections many lines away) because it 'gets that feature in quicker'? I'm beginning to fear we may loses valuable developers to the raptors over this...

  Read the article

• Prims vs Polys: what are the pros and cons of each?

  - by Richard Inglis

  I've noticed that most 3d gaming/rendering environments represent solids as a mesh of (usually triangular) 3d polygons. However some examples, such as Second Life, or PovRay use solids built from a set of 3d primitives (cube, sphere, cone, torus etc) on which various operations can be performed to create more complex shapes. So my question is: why choose one method over the other for representing 3d data? I can see there might be benefits for complex ray-tracing operations to be able to describe a surface as a single mathematical function (like PovRay does), but SL surely isn't attempting anything so ambitious with their rendering engine. Equally, I can imagine it might be more bandwidth-efficient to serve descriptions of generalised solids instead of arbitrary meshes, but is it really worth the downside that SL suffers from (ie modelling stuff is really hard, and usually the results are ugly) - was this just a bad decision made early in SL's development that they're now stuck with? Or is it an artefact of what's easiest to implement in OpenGL?

  Read the article

• Best practice for using Wcf service by silverlight?

  - by bonefisher

  How would you structure the code for calling a wcf service in silverlight application? Using only-once instanciated wcf service-proxy (aka singleton) and using it across the whole SL app? If so, how did you solve the unsubscribing controls from ws-call-completed event? or creating the wcf service-proxy for each ws-call? Where do you close the proxy then?

  Read the article

• How to synchronize static method in java.

  - by Summer_More_More_Tea

  Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

  Read the article

• Should a C++ constructor do real work?

  - by Wade Williams

  I'm strugging with some advice I have in the back of my mind but for which I can't remember the reasoning. I seem to remember at some point reading some advice (can't remember the source) that C++ constructors should not do real work. Rather, they should initialize variables only. The advice when on to explain that real work should be done in some sort of init() method, to be called separately after the instance was created. The situation is I have a class that represents a hardware device. It makes logical sense to me for the constructor to call the routines that query the device in order to build up the instance variables that describe the device. In other words, once new instantiates the object, the developer receives an object which is ready to be used, no separate call to object-init() required. Is there a good reason why constructors shouldn't do real work? Obviously it could slow allocation time, but that wouldn't be any different if calling a separate method immediately after allocation. Just trying to figure out what gotchas I not currently considering that might have lead to such advice.

  Read the article

• How do I correct feature envy in this case?

  - by RMorrisey

  I have some code that looks like: class Parent { private Intermediate intermediateContainer; public Intermediate getIntermediate(); } class Intermediate { private Child child; public Child getChild() {...} public void intermediateOp(); } class Child { public void something(); public void somethingElse(); } class Client { private Parent parent; public void something() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().something(); } public void somethingElse() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().somethingElse(); } public void intermediate() { parent.getIntermediate().intermediateOp(); } } I understand that is an example of the "feature envy" code smell. The question is, what's the best way to fix it? My first instinct is to put the three methods on parent: parent.something(); parent.somethingElse(); parent.intermediateOp(); ...but I feel like this duplicates code, and clutters the API of the Parent class (which is already rather busy). Do I want to store the result of getIntermediate(), and/or getChild(), and keep my own references to these objects?

  Read the article

• Whats the best semantic default/starting layout for html5?

  - by John Isaacks

  I am a little confused on how the new tags should go. Is this correct: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> </head> <body> <section> <header> <nav></nav> </header> <section> </section> <footer> </footer> <section> </body> </html> Or should one of the sections be an <article>? What should be the starting layout?

  Read the article

• is the below a good approach to returning a safe list enumerator?

  - by user200295

  public class Foo{ public string Prop1 {get;set;} public string Prop2 {get;set;} public Foo(Foo source) { this.Prop1 = source.Prop1; this.Prop2 = source.Prop2; } } public class Main { private List<Foo> items = new List<Foo>(); public IEnumerable<Foo> GetItems() { foreach (Foo foo in items) { yield return new Foo(foo); } } }

  Read the article

• To "null" or not to "null" my class's attributes

  - by Helper Method

  When I write a class in Java, I like to initialize the attributes which are set to a default value directly and attributes which are set by the caller in the constructor, something like this: public class Stack<E> { private List<E> list; private size = 0; public Stack(int initialCapacity) { list = new ArrayList<E>(initialCapacity); } // remainder omitted } Now suppose I have a Tree class: public class Tree<E> { private Node<E> root = null; // no constructor needed, remainder omitted } Shall I set the root attribute to null, to mark that it is set to null by default, or omit the null value?

  Read the article

• Correct structure and way of website versioning

  - by Saif Bechan

  Recently I use GIT to version my website. It makes it all really easy to see how my project develops and I always have save backups on different places on the web. Now my main question is if it is recommended to version your whole root of the website. I have a basic structure that looks something like this: /httpdocs /config /media /application index.php .htaccess 1) Should I use the /httpdocs folder to version, or should I use the content of the folder. 2) Is it recommended to version the media folder. In the media version I have several images for the overall layout, and some other images for the website. These imagas can be quite large. I work on these images from time to time and so they change. I hardly never need the old image again, so is this not just taking up precious storage space. I would highly appreciate just some basic recommendation on this topic.

  Read the article

• How to use interfaces in exception handling

  - by vikp

  Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

  Read the article

• Does OOP make sense for small scripts?

  - by Fabian

  I mostly write small scripts in python, about 50 - 250 lines of code. I usually don't use any objects, just straightforward procedural programming. I know OOP basics and I have used object in other programming languages before, but for small scripts I don't see how objects would improve them. But maybe that is just my limited experience with OOP. Am I missing something by not trying harder to use objects, or does OOP just not make a lot of sense for small scripts?

  Read the article

• Saving a Django form with a Many2Many field with through table

  - by PhilGo20

  So I have this model with multiple Many2Many relationship. 2 of those (EventCategorizing and EventLocation are through tables/intermediary models) class Event(models.Model): """ Event information for Way-finding and Navigator application""" categories = models.ManyToManyField('EventCategorizing', null=True, blank=True, help_text="categories associated with the location") #categories associated with the location images = models.ManyToManyField(KMSImageP, null=True, blank=True) #images related to the event creator = models.ForeignKey(User, verbose_name=_('creator'), related_name="%(class)s_created") locations = models.ManyToManyField('EventLocation', null=True, blank=True) In my view, I first need to save the creator as the request user, so I use the commit=False parameter to get the form values. if event_form.is_valid(): event = event_form.save(commit=False) #we save the request user as the creator event.creator = request.user event.save() event = event_form.save_m2m() event.save() I get the following error: *** TypeError: 'EventCategorizing' instance expected I can manually add the M2M relationship to my "event" instance, but I am sure there is a simpler way. Am I missing on something ?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134  | Next Page >