Search Results

Search found 29753 results on 1191 pages for 'best practices'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 128/1191 | < Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >

  • Synchronising scripts / db / files from dev system to web server

    - by Spoonface
    I work as a freelance web dev, and up until now have been ftping my scripts / databases / static files to my web server manually, but I'm finding that is too error prone. So I'm looking for an app to automate uploading new and updated scripts / files / databases / etc. I know a lot of independent devs use WinSCP or Unison, but I don't think those apps can synch databases. Does anyone have any other suggestions? It doesn't need to be anything overly feature rich as I'm not working within a team or across multiple operating systems or anything like that. I can purchase any reasonably priced license if necesary. My work is primarily for PHP / MySQL / Apache on a Windows system, and then uploaded to a Linux / Apache server. thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • Design patterns to avoid

    - by Brian Rasmussen
    A lot of people seem to agree, that the Singleton pattern has a number of drawbacks and some even suggest to avoid the pattern all together. There's an excellent discussion here. Please direct any comments about the Singleton pattern to that question. Are there other design patterns, that should be avoided or used with great care?

    Read the article

  • Separation of interfaces and implementation

    - by bonefisher
    From assembly(or module) perspective, what do you think of separation of Interface (1.assembly) and its Implementation (2.assembly)? In this way we can use some IoC container to develop more decoupling desing.. Say we have an assembly 'A', which contains interfaces only. Then we have an assembly 'B' which references 'A' and implements those interfaces..It is dependent only on 'A'. In assembly 'C' then we can use the IoC container to create objects of 'A' using dependency injection of objects from 'B'. This way 'B' and 'C' are completely unaware (not dependent) of themselves..

    Read the article

  • What are the common programming mistakes in Python?

    - by Paul McGuire
    I was about to tag the recent question in which the OP accidentally shadowed the builtin operator module with his own local operator.py with the "common-mistakes" tag, and I saw that there are a number of interesting questions posted asking for common mistakes to avoid in Java, Ruby, Scala, Clojure, .Net, jQuery, Haskell, SQL, ColdFusion, and so on, but I didn't see any for Python. For the benefit of Python beginners, can we enumerate the common mistakes that we have all committed at one time or another, in the hopes of maybe steering a newbie or two clear of them? (In homage to "The Princess Bride", I call these the Classic Blunders.) If possible, a little supporting explanation on what the problem is, and the generally accepted resolution/workaround, so that the beginning Pythoner doesn't read your answer and say "ok, that's a mistake, how do I fix it?"

    Read the article

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    Read the article

  • Why Shouldn't I Programmatically Submit Username/Password to Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/etc?

    - by viatropos
    I wish there was a central, fully customizable, open source, universal login system that allowed you to login and manage all of your online accounts (maybe there is?)... I just found RPXNow today after starting to build a Sinatra app to login to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, OpenID, and EventBrite, and it looks like it might save some time. But I keep wondering, not being an authentication guru, why couldn't I just have a sleek login page saying "Enter username and password, and check your login service", and then in the background either scrape the login page from say EventBrite and programmatically submit the form with Mechanize, or use an API if there was one? It would be so much cleaner and such a better user experience if they didn't have to go through popups and redirects and they could use any previously existing accounts. My question is: What are the reasons why I shouldn't do something like that? I don't know much about the serious details of cookies/sessions/security, so if you could be descriptive or point me to some helpful links that would be awesome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How sophisticated should be DAL?

    - by Andrew Florko
    Basically, DAL (Data Access Layer) should provide simple CRUD (Create/Read/Update/Delete) methods but I always have a temptation to create more sophisticated methods in order to minimize database access roundtrips from Business Logic Layer. What do you think about following extensions to CRUD (most of them are OK I suppose): Read: GetById, GetByName, GetPaged, GetByFilter... e.t.c. methods Create: GetOrCreate methods (model entity is returned from DB or created if not found and returned), Create(lots-of-relations) instead of Create and multiple AssignTo methods calls Update: Merge methods (entities list are updated, created and deleted in one call) Delete: Delete(bool children) - optional children delete, Cleanup methods Where do you usually implement Entity Cache capabilities? DAL or BLL? (My choice is BLL, but I have seen DAL implementations also) Where is the boundary when you decide: this operation is too specific so I should implement it in Business Logic Layer as DAL multiple calls? I often found insufficient BLL operations that were implemented in dozen database roundtrips because developer was afraid to create a bit more sophisticated DAL. Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • How to solve the problem of not being informed of successful payments by the 3rd party system used b

    - by user68759
    I have a subscription based website that interacts with a 3rd party system to handle the payments. The steps to process a new subscriber registration are as follow: The subscriber enters his/her details in the subscription form and click on the submit button. Assuming the details specified are valid, a new record is created in the database to store these details. The subscriber is then redirected to the website of the 3rd party system (similar to paypal) to process the payment. Once the payment is succesful, the 3rd party website then redirect the subscriber back to our website. At this time, I know that the payment was succesful, so the record in the database is updated to indicate that payment has been made successfully. A problem that I have found occurring quite often is that if a subscriber pays but does not complete the process correctly (e.g. uses the back browser, closes the window), his/her record in the database doesn't get updated about this. Accordingly, I don't know if s/he has paid by just looking the record and need to wait for the report from the 3rd party system to find this out. How do you solve this problem? PS. One of the main reasons to store their details into the database before the payment process is done is so they can come back to complete the payment without re-entering their details again. For example, when their credit cards were rejected by the 3rd party system and they need to sort this out with their financial institution which may take a while.

    Read the article

  • What is the most elegant way to validate the presence of ONLY one out of two attributes using Rails?

    - by marcgg
    class Followup < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :post belongs_to :comment end This model needs to only have either a post or a comment, but only one of the two. Here's the rspec for what I'm trying to do: it "should be impossible to have both a comment and a post" do followup = Followup.make followup.comment = Comment.make followup.should be_valid followup.post = Post.make followup.should_not be_valid end I can see a bunch of ways of doing this, but what would be the most elegant way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Checking for empty arrays: count vs empty

    - by Dan McG
    This question on 'How to tell if a PHP array is empty' had me thinking of this question Is there a reason that count should be used instead of empty when determining if an array is empty or not? My personal thought would be if the 2 are equivalent for the case of empty arrays you should use empty because it gives a boolean answer to a boolean question. From the question linked above, it seems that count($var) == 0 is the popular method. To me, while technically correct, makes no sense. E.g. Q: $var, are you empty? A: 7. Hmmm... Is there a reason I should use count == 0 instead or just a matter of personal taste? As pointed out by others in comments for a now deleted answer, count will have performance impacts for large arrays because it will have to count all elements, whereas empty can stop as soon as it knows it isn't empty. So, if they give the same results in this case, but count is potentially inefficient, why would we ever use count($var) == 0?

    Read the article

  • Avoid writing SQL queries altogether in SSIS

    - by Jonn
    Working on a Data Warehouse project, the guy that gave us the tutorial advised that we stick to using SQL queries over defining a lot of data flow transformations, citing points like it'll consume a lot of memory on the ETL box so we'd rather leave the processing to the DB box. Is this really advisable? Where's the balance between relying on GUI tools over executing a bunch of SQL scripts on your Integration package? And honestly, I'd like to avoid writing SQL queries as much as I can.

    Read the article

  • actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

    - by maxmc
    hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

    Read the article

  • Using table-of-contents in code?

    - by AareP
    Do you use table-of-contents for listing all the functions (and maybe variables) of a class in the beginning of big source code file? I know that alternative to that kind of listing would be to split up big files into smaller classes/files, so that their class declaration would be self-explanatory enough.. but some complex tasks require a lot of code. I'm not sure is it really worth it spending your time subdividing implementation into multiple of files? Or is it ok to create an index-listing additionally to the class/interface declaration?

    Read the article

  • Password reset by email without a database table

    - by jpatokal
    The normal flow for resetting a user's password by mail is this: Generate a random string and store it in a database table Email string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated against database; if it matches, user's pw is reset However, maintaining a table and expiring old strings etc seems like a bit of an unnecessary hassle. Are there any obvious flaws in this alternative approach? Generate a MD5 hash of the user's existing password Email hash string to user User clicks on link containing string String is validated by hashing existing pw again; if it matches, user's pw is reset Note that the user's password is already stored in a hashed and salted form, and I'm just hashing it once more to get a unique but repeatable string. And yes, there is one obvious "flaw": the reset link thus generated will not expire until the user changes their password (clicks the link). I don't really see why this would be a problem though -- if the mailbox is compromised, the user is screwed anyway.

    Read the article

  • Which of these is better practice?

    - by Fletcher Moore
    You have a sequence of functions to execute. Case A: They do not depend on each other. Which of these is better? function main() { a(); b(); c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... b(); } function b() { ... c(); } Case B: They do depend on successful completion of the previous. function main() { if (a()) if (b()) c(); } or function main() { if (!a()) return false; if (!b()) return false; c(); } or function main() { a(); } function a() { ... // maybe return false b(); } funtion b() { ... // maybe return false c(); } Better, of course, means more maintainable and easier to follow.

    Read the article

  • Should a setter return immediately if assigned the same value?

    - by Andrei Rinea
    In classes that implement INotifyPropertyChanged I often see this pattern : public string FirstName { get { return _customer.FirstName; } set { if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; _customer.FirstName = value; base.OnPropertyChanged("FirstName"); } } Precisely the lines if (value == _customer.FirstName) return; are bothering me. I've often did this but I am not that sure it's needed nor good. After all if a caller assigns the very same value I don't want to reassign the field and, especially, notify my subscribers that the property has changed when, semantically it didn't. Except saving some CPU/RAM/etc by freeing the UI from updating something that will probably look the same on the screen/whatever_medium what do we obtain? Could some people force a refresh by reassigning the same value on a property (NOT THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE HOWEVER)? 1. Should we do it or shouldn't we? 2. Why?

    Read the article

  • Managing aesthetic code changes in git

    - by Ollie Saunders
    I find that I make a lot of small changes to my source code, often things that have almost no functional effect. For example: Refining or correcting comments. Moving function definitions within a class for a more natural reading order. Spacing and lining up some declarations for readability. Collapsing something using multiple lines on to one. Removing an old piece of commented-out code. Correcting some inconsistent whitespace. I guess I have a formidable attention to detail in my code. But the problem is I don't know what to do about these changes and they make it difficult to switch between branches etc. in git. I find myself not knowing whether to commit the minor changes, stash them, or put them in a separate branch of little tweaks and merge that in later. None those options seems ideal. The main problem is that these sort of changes are unpredictable. If I was to commit these there would be so many commits with the message "Minor code aesthetic change.", because, the second I make such a commit I notice another similar issue. What should I do when I make a minor change, a significant change, and then another minor change? I'd like to merge the three minor changes into one commit. It's also annoying seeing files as modified in git status when the change barely warrants my attention. I know about git commit --amend but I also know that's bad practice as it makes my repo inconsistent with remotes.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid repetition when working with primitive types?

    - by I82Much
    I have the need to perform algorithms on various primitive types; the algorithm is essentially the same with the exception of which type the variables are. So for instance, /** * Determine if <code>value</code> is the bitwise OR of elements of <code>validValues</code> array. * For instance, our valid choices are 0001, 0010, and 1000. * We are given a value of 1001. This is valid because it can be made from * ORing together 0001 and 1000. * On the other hand, if we are given a value of 1111, this is invalid because * you cannot turn on the second bit from left by ORing together those 3 * valid values. */ public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { for (long validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { for (int validOption : validValues) { value &= ~validOption; } return value != 0; } How can I avoid this repetition? I know there's no way to genericize primitive arrays, so my hands seem tied. I have instances of primitive arrays and not boxed arrays of say Number objects, so I do not want to go that route either. I know there are a lot of questions about primitives with respect to arrays, autoboxing, etc., but I haven't seen it formulated in quite this way, and I haven't seen a decisive answer on how to interact with these arrays. I suppose I could do something like: public static<E extends Number> boolean isValid(E value, List<E> numbers) { long theValue = value.longValue(); for (Number validOption : numbers) { theValue &= ~validOption.longValue(); } return theValue != 0; } and then public static boolean isValid(long value, long[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } public static boolean isValid(int value, int[] validValues) { return isValid(value, Arrays.asList(ArrayUtils.toObject(validValues))); } Is that really much better though? Any thoughts in this matter would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • keep viewdata on RedirectToAction

    - by Thomas Stock
    [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult CreateUser([Bind(Exclude = "Id")] User user) { ... db.SubmitChanges(); ViewData["info"] = "The account has been created."; return RedirectToAction("Index", "Admin"); } This doesnt keep the "info" text in the viewdata after the redirectToAction. How would I get around this issue in the most elegant way? My current idea is to put the stuff from the Index controlleraction in a [NonAction] and call that method from both the Index action and in the CreateUser action, but I have a feeling there must be a better way. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

  • Consistency vs Design Guidelines

    - by Adrian Faciu
    Lets say that you get involved in the development of a large project that is already in development for a long period ( more than one year ). The projects follows some of the current design guidelines, but also has a few different, that are currently discouraged ( mostly at naming guidelines ). Supposing that you can't/aren't allowed to change the whole project: What should be more important, consistency, follow the existing ones and defy current guidelines or the usage of the guidelines, creating differences between modules of the same project ? Thanks.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >