Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns 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 128/348 | < Previous Page | 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135  | Next Page >

  • How to restrain one's self from the overwhelming urge to rewrite everything?

    - by Scott Saad
    Setup Have you ever had the experience of going into a piece of code to make a seemingly simple change and then realizing that you've just stepped into a wasteland that deserves some serious attention? This usually gets followed up with an official FREAK OUT moment, where the overwhelming feeling of rewriting everything in sight starts to creep up. It's important to note that this bad code does not necessarily come from others as it may indeed be something we've written or contributed to in the past. Problem It's obvious that there is some serious code rot, horrible architecture, etc. that needs to be dealt with. The real problem, as it relates to this question, is that it's not the right time to rewrite the code. There could be many reasons for this: Currently in the middle of a release cycle, therefore any changes should be minimal. It's 2:00 AM in the morning, and the brain is starting to shut down. It could have seemingly adverse affects on the schedule. The rabbit hole could go much deeper than our eyes are able to see at this time. etc... Question So how should we balance the duty of continuously improving the code, while also being a responsible developer? How do we refrain from contributing to the broken window theory, while also being aware of actions and the potential recklessness they may cause? Update Great answers! For the most part, there seems to be two schools of thought: Don't resist the urge as it's a good one to have. Don't give in to the temptation as it will burn you to the ground. It would be interesting to know if more people feel any balance exists.

    Read the article

  • Format for storing contacts in a database

    - by Gart
    I'm thinking of the best way to store personal contacts in a database for a business application. The traditional and straightforward approach would be to create a table with columns for each element, i.e. Name, Telephone Number, Job title, Address, etc... However, there are known industry standards for this kind of data, like for example vCard, or hCard, or vCard-RDF/XML or even Windows Contacts XML Schema. Utilizing an standard format would offer some benefits, like inter-operablilty with other systems. But how can I decide which method to use? The requirements are mainly to store the data. Search and ordering queries are highly unlikely but possible. The volume of the data is 100,000 records at maximum. My database engine supports native XML columns. I have been thinking to use some XML-based format to store the personal contacts. Then it will be possible to utilize XML indexes on this data, if searching and ordering is needed. Is this a good approach? Which contacts format and schema would you recommend for this?

    Read the article

  • Optimal UI For Single Zip Code Entry on iPhone

    - by sylvanaar
    I need to prompt the user to enter his/her zip code at certain times in my iPhone application. I cannot store it or get it from the user's current location. What is the optimal input method? I started with a 5 wheel picker. This seemed like a bad direction, so I opted for a PIN-like entry screen. My implepentation is about the same as the 'enter passcode' screen you see when unlocking the iphone - including automatically ending input on the 5th digit instead of providing a return/enter button. Does this seem optimal? Or is there a better way? Note: I only need to accept a 5 digit US zip code.

    Read the article

  • Is there a recommended way to use the Observer pattern in MVP using GWT?

    - by Tomislav Nakic-Alfirevic
    I am thinking about implementing a user interface according to the MVP pattern using GWT, but have doubts about how to proceed. These are (some of) my goals: - the presenter knows nothing about the UI technology (i.e. uses nothing from com.google.*) - the view knows nothing about the model or the presenter - the model knows nothing of the view or the presenter (...obviously) I would place an interface between the view and the presenter and use the Observer pattern to decouple the two: the view generates events and the presenter gets notified. What confuses me is that java.util.Observer and java.util.Observable are not supported in GWT. This suggests that what I'm doing is not the recommended way to do it, as far as GWT is concerned, which leads me to my questions: what is the recommended way to implement MVP using GWT, specifically with the above goals in mind? How would you do it?

    Read the article

  • Rounded Corners Image Change on Hover

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, I created a rounded box/button and sliced its first corner, the middle bar (which repeats horizontally to adjust the width of the button text/content) and the last corner and used following markup: <div id="left-corner"></div> <div id="middle-bar">About Us</div> <div id="right-corner"></div> These divs have corresponding images from CSS and are floated left. Those three divs create a single rounded button wiht text About Us which is fine. Problem: I have also created similar three slices of hover images but I wonder how to apply hover to those buttons because if I use :hover with these hovered slices, then even hovering on corner images also creates hovering effect. One alternative is to use fixed width buttons and slice buttons completely but I do not want to do that.

    Read the article

  • Is this a well known design pattern? what is it's name

    - by GenEric35
    Hi I have seen this often in code, but when I speak of it i don't know the name of such 'pattern' I have a method with 2 arguments that calls an overloaded method that has 3 arguments and intentionality sets the 3rd one to empty string. public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber) { CreateContact(name, phoneNumber, string.Empty) } public DoWork(string name, string phoneNumber, string emailAddress) { //do the work } The reason I'm doing this is I to not duplicate code, and allow the existing callers to still call the method that has only 2 parameters. I have associate a few tags to this question, but it probably fit in more categories of questions. Is this a pattern, and does it have a name?

    Read the article

  • How to exit an if clause

    - by Roman Stolper
    What sorts of methods exist for prematurely exiting an if clause? There are times when I'm writing code and want to put a break statement inside of an if clause, only to remember that those can only be used for loops. Lets take the following code as an example: if some_condition: ... if condition_a: # do something # and then exit the outer if block ... if condition_b: # do something # and then exit the outer if block # more code here I can think of one way to do this: assuming the exit cases happen within nested if statements, wrap the remaining code in a big else block. Example: if some_condition: ... if condition_a: # do something # and then exit the outer if block else: ... if condition_b: # do something # and then exit the outer if block else: # more code here The problem with this is that more exit locations mean more nesting/indented code. Alternatively, I could write my code to have the if clauses be as small as possible and not require any exits. Does anyone know of a good/better way to exit an if clause? If there are any associated else-if and else clauses, I figure that exiting would skip over them.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC IoC usability

    - by Andrew Florko
    Hello everybody, How often do you use IoC for controllers/DAL in real projects? IoC allows to abstract application from concrete implementation with additional layer of interfaces that should be implemented. But how often concrete implementation changes? Should we really have to do job twice adding method to interface then the implementation if implementation hardly will ever be changed? I took part in about 10 asp.net projects and DAL (ORM-like and not) was never rewritten completely. Watching lots of videos I clearly understand that IoC "is cool" and the really nice way to program, but does it really needed?

    Read the article

  • Time/resource allocation on a Stylish vs. Functional user interface

    - by jasonk
    When developing applications how much focus/time do you place on an application’s style vs. functionality. Battleship gray apps drive me insane. On the other hand maximizing a business application’s "style" can tax time and financial resources. Applications need to be appealing to resell or meet basic customer expectations, but defining a healthy medium can be difficult. What would you say are reasonable "standards" for allocating develop time/resources should be dedicated to stylizing a business application?

    Read the article

  • Why would it be a bad idea to have database connection open between client requests?

    - by AspOnMyNet
    1) Book I’m reading argues that connections shouldn’t be opened between client requests, since they are a finite resource. I realize that max pool size can quickly be reached and thus any further attempts to open a connection will be queued until connection becomes available and for that reason it would be imperative that we release connection as soon as possible. But assuming all request will open connection to the same DB, then I’m not sure how having a connection open between two client requests would be any less efficient than having each request first acquiring a connection from connection pool and later returning that object to connection pool? 2) Book also recommends that when database code is encapsulated in a dedicated data access class, then method M opening a database connection should also close that connection. a) I assume one reason why M should also close it, is because if method M opening the connection doesn’t also close it, but instead this connection object is used inside several methods, then it’s more likely that a programmer will forget to close it. b) Are there any other reasons why a method opening the connection should also close it? thanx

    Read the article

  • Asp.Net MVC2 TekPub Starter Site methodology question

    - by Pino
    Ok I've just ran into this and I was only supposed to be checking my emails however I've ended up watching this (and not far off subscribing to TekPub). http://tekpub.com/production/starter Now these app is a great starting point, but it raises one issue for me and the development process I've been shown to follow (rightly or wrongly). There is no conversion from the LinqToSql object when passing data to the view. Are there any negitives to this? The main one I can see is with validation, does this cause issues when using MVC's built in validation as this is somthing we use extensivly. Because we are using the built in objects generated by LinqToSql how would one go about adding validation, like [Required(ErrorMessage="Name is Required")] public string Name {get;set;} Interested to understand the benifits of this methodology and any negitives that, should we take it on, experiance through the development process.

    Read the article

  • Deliberately adding bugs to assess QA processes

    - by bgbg
    How do you know that as many bugs as possiblle have been discovered and solved in a program? Couple of years ago I have read a document about debugging (I think it was some sort of HOWTO). Among other things, that document described a technique in which the programming team deliberately adds bugs into the code and passes it to the QA team. The QA process is considered completed when all the deliberately known bugs have been discovered. Unfortunately, I cannot find this document, or any similar one with description of this trick. Can someone please point me to such a document?

    Read the article

  • Best practice - When to evaluate conditionals of function execution

    - by Tesserex
    If I have a function called from a few places, and it requires some condition to be met for anything it does to execute, where should that condition be checked? In my case, it's for drawing - if the mouse button is held down, then execute the drawing logic (this is being done in the mouse movement handler for when you drag.) Option one says put it in the function so that it's guaranteed to be checked. Abstracted, if you will. public function Foo() { DoThing(); } private function DoThing() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } The problem I have with this is that when reading the code of Foo, which may be far away from DoThing, it looks like a bug. The first thought is that the condition isn't being checked. Option two, then, is to check before calling. public function Foo() { if (condition) DoThing(); } This reads better, but now you have to worry about checking from everywhere you call it. Option three is to rename the function to be more descriptive. public function Foo() { DoThingOnlyIfCondition(); } private function DoThingOnlyIfCondition() { if (!condition) return; // do stuff } Is this the "correct" solution? Or is this going a bit too far? I feel like if everything were like this function names would start to duplicate their code. About this being subjective: of course it is, and there may not be a right answer, but I think it's still perfectly at home here. Getting advice from better programmers than I is the second best way to learn. Subjective questions are exactly the kind of thing Google can't answer.

    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

  • How can i return abstract class from any factory?

    - by programmerist
    using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; namespace EfTestFactory { public abstract class _Company { public abstract List<Personel> GetPersonel(); public abstract List<Prim> GetPrim(); public abstract List<Finans> GetFinans(); } public abstract class _Radyoloji { public abstract List<string> GetRadyoloji(); } public abstract class _Satis { public abstract List<string> GetSatis(); } public abstract class _Muayene { public abstract List<string> GetMuayene(); } public class Company : _Company { public override List<Personel> GetPersonel() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public override List<Prim> GetPrim() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public override List<Finans> GetFinans() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Radyoloji : _Radyoloji { public override List<string> GetRadyoloji() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Satis : _Satis { public override List<string> GetSatis() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class Muayene : _Muayene { public override List<string> GetMuayene() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } public class GenoTipController { public object CreateByEnum(DataModelType modeltype) { string enumText = modeltype.ToString(); // will return for example "Company" Type classType = Type.GetType(enumText); // the Type for Company class object t = Activator.CreateInstance(classType); // create an instance of Company class return t; } } public class AntsController { static Dictionary<DataModelType, Func<object>> s_creators = new Dictionary<DataModelType, Func<object>>() { { DataModelType.Radyoloji, () => new _Radyoloji() }, { DataModelType.Company, () => new _Company() }, { DataModelType.Muayene, () => new _Muayene() }, { DataModelType.Satis, () => new _Satis() }, }; public object CreateByEnum(DataModelType modeltype) { return s_creators[modeltype](); } } public class CompanyView { public static List<Personel> GetPersonel() { GenoTipController controller = new GenoTipController(); _Company company = controller.CreateByEnum(DataModelType.Company) as _Company; return company.GetPersonel(); } } public enum DataModelType { Radyoloji, Satis, Muayene, Company } } if i write above codes i see some error: Cannot create an instance of abstract class or interface 'EfTestFactory_Company'How can i solve it? Look please below pic.

    Read the article

  • quantity of measurable units design pattern

    - by Berryl
    Hello I am thinking through a nice pattern to be useful across domains of measurable units (ie, Length, Time) and came up with the following use case and initial classes, and of course, questions! 1) Does a Composite pattern help or complicate? 2) Should the Convert method(s) in the ComposityNode be a separate converter class? All comments appreciated. Cheers, Berryl Example Use Case: var inch = new ConvertableUnit("inch", 1) var foot = new ConvertableUnit("foot", 12) var imperialUnits = new CompositeConvertableUnit("imperial units", .024) imperialUnits.AddChild(inch) imperialUnits.AddChild(foot) var meter = new ConvertableUnit("meter", 1) var millimeter = new ConvertableUnit("millimeter ", .001) var imperialUnits = new CompositeConvertableUnit("metric units", 1) imperialUnits.AddChild(meter) imperialUnits.AddChild(millimeter) var oneInch = new Quantity(1, inch); var oneFoot = new Quantity(1, foot); oneFoot.ToBase() // "12 inches" var oneMeter = new Quantity(1, meter); oneInch.ToBase() // .024 meters Possible Solution ConvertableUnit : Node double Rate string Name Quantity ConvertableUnit Unit double Amount CompositeConvertableUnit : Node ISet<ConvertableUnit> _children ConvertableUnit BaseUnit {get{ return _children.Where(c=>c.Rate == 1).First() } } Quantity ConvertTo(Quantity from, Quantity to) Quantity ToBase(Quantity from);

    Read the article

  • Questions on about TDD or unit testing in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Diego
    I've been searching on how to do Unit testing and find thats is quite easy, but, what I want to know is, In a asp.net mvc application, what should be REALLY important to test and which methods you guys use? I just can't find a clear answer on about WHAT TO REALLY TEST when programming unit tests. I just don't want to make unecessary tests and loose developement time doing overkill tests.

    Read the article

  • are there any negative implications of sourcing a javascript file that does not actually exist?

    - by dreftymac
    If you do script src="/path/to/nonexistent/file.js" in an HTML file and call that in a browser, and there are no dependencies or resources anywhere else in the HTML file that expect the file or code therein to actually exist, is there anything inherently bad-practice about doing this? Yes, it is an odd question. The rationale is the developer is dealing with a CMS that allows custom (self-contained) javascript files to be provided in certain circumstances. The problem is the CMS is not very flexible when it comes to creating conditional includes for javascript. Therefore it is easier to just make references to the self-contained js files regardless of whether they are actually at the specified path. Since no errors are displayed to the user, should this practice be considered a viable option?

    Read the article

  • MVVM pattern: ViewModel updates after Model server roundtrip

    - by Pavel Savara
    I have stateless services and anemic domain objects on server side. Model between server and client is POCO DTO. The client should become MVVM. The model could be graph of about 100 instances of 20 different classes. The client editor contains diverse tab-pages all of them live-connected to model/viewmodel. My problem is how to propagate changes after server round-trip nice way. It's quite easy to propagate changes from ViewModel to DTO. For way back it would be possible to throw away old DTO and replace it whole with new one, but it will cause lot of redrawing for lists/DataTemplates. I could gather the server side changes and transmit them to client side. But the names of fields changed would be domain/DTO specific, not ViewModel specific. And the mapping seems nontrivial to me. If I should do it imperative way after round-trip, it would break SOC/modularity of viewModels. I'm thinking about some kind of mapping rule engine, something like automappper or emit mapper. But it solves just very plain use-cases. I don't see how it would map/propagate/convert adding items to list or removal. How to identify instances in collections so it could merge values to existing instances. As well it should propagate validation/error info. Maybe I should implement INotifyPropertyChanged on DTO and try to replay server side events on it ? And then bind ViewModel to it ? Would binding solve the problems with collection merges nice way ? Is EventAgregator from PRISM useful for that ? Is there any event record-replay component ? Is there better client side pattern for architecture with server side logic ?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to generate a short random id, avoiding collisions, without hitting persistent storag

    - by bshacklett
    If you've used GoToMeeting, that's the type of ID I want. I'd like it to be random so that it obfuscates the number of items being tracked and short, so that it's easy to reference manually; UUIDs are way too long. I'd like to avoid hitting persistent storage merely for performance reasons, but I can't think of any other way to avoid collisions. Is 9 digits enough to do something time-based?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC null ViewResult

    - by David Neale
    How should one deal with an MVC controller returning a null ViewResult? As an example I am creating a simple edit view: public ActionResult Edit(int id) { var person = (from p in context.SWLiftShare_Persons where p.id == id select p).SingleOrDefault(); if (person != null) { return View(person); } else return View(); } I guess in reality there's no point in checking for a null result in the controller because the view picks out properties from the model: <h2>Edit - <%= Html.Encode(Model.Name) %></h2> <%= Html.ValidationSummary("Edit was unsuccessful. Please correct the errors and try again.") %> <% using (Html.BeginForm()) {%> <fieldset> <legend>Fields</legend> <p> <label for="id">id: <%= Html.Encode(Model.id) %></label> </p> <p> <label for="CollarNumber">CollarNumber:</label> <%= Html.TextBox("CollarNumber", Model.CollarNumber)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("CollarNumber", "*") %> </p> <p> <label for="Name">Name:</label> <%= Html.TextBox("Name", Model.Name)%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("Name", "*") %> </p> <p> <label for="EmailAddress">EmailAddress:</label> <%= Html.TextBox("EmailAddress", Model.EmailAddress, new { style = "width:300px" })%> <%= Html.ValidationMessage("EmailAddress", "*") %> </p> <p> <input type="submit" value="Save" /> </p> </fieldset> <% } %> I could just wrap everything in a <% if(Model != null) { //render edit markup... etc. but that seems rather unelegant. Is there a better way to deal with this?

    Read the article

  • Is testability alone justification for dependency injection?

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    The advantages of DI, as far as I am aware, are: Reduced Dependencies More Reusable Code More Testable Code More Readable Code Say I have a repository, OrderRepository, which acts as a repository for an Order object generated through a Linq to Sql dbml. I can't make my orders repository generic as it performs mapping between the Linq Order entity and my own Order POCO domain class. Since the OrderRepository by necessity is dependent on a specific Linq to Sql DataContext, parameter passing of the DataContext can't really be said to make the code reuseable or reduce dependencies in any meaningful way. It also makes the code harder to read, as to instantiate the repository I now need to write new OrdersRepository(new MyLinqDataContext()) which additionally is contrary to the main purpose of the repository, that being to abstract/hide the existence of the DataContext from consuming code. So in general I think this would be a pretty horrible design, but it would give the benefit of facilitating unit testing. Is this enough justification? Or is there a third way? I'd be very interested in hearing opinions.

    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 >