Search Results

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

Page 130/405 | < Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >

• Getting up to speed on modern architecture

  - by Matt Thrower

  Hi, I don't have any formal qualifications in computer science, rather I taught myself classic ASP back in the days of the dotcom boom and managed to get myself a job and my career developed from there. I was a confident and, I think, pretty good programmer in ASP 3 but as others have observed one of the problems with classic ASP was that it did a very good job of hiding the nitty-gritty of http so you could become quite competent as a programmer on the basis of relatively poor understanding of the technology you were working with. When I changed on to .NET at first I treated it like classic ASP, developing stand-alone applications as individual websites simply because I didn't know any better at the time. I moved jobs at this point and spent the next several years working on a single site whose architecture relied heavily on custom objects: in other words I gained a lot of experience working with .NET as a middle-tier development tool using a quite old-fashioned approach to OO design along the lines of the classic "car" class example that's so often used to teach OO. Breaking down programs into blocks of functionality and basing your classes and methods around that. Although we worked under an Agile approach to manage the work the whole setup was classic client/server stuff. That suited me and I gradually got to grips with .NET and started using it far more in the manner that it should be, and I began to see the power inherent in the technology and precisely why it was so much better than good old ASP 3. In my latest job I have found myself suddenly dropped in at the deep end with two quite young, skilled and very cutting-edge programmers. They've built a site architecture which is modelling along a lot of stuff which is new to me and which, in truth I'm having a lot of trouble understanding. The application is built on a cloud computing model with multi-tenancy and the architecture is all loosely coupled using a lot of interfaces, factories and the like. They use nHibernate a lot too. Shortly after I joined, both these guys left and I'm now supposedly the senior developer on a system whose technology and architecture I don't really understand and I have no-one to ask questions of. Except you, the internet. Frankly I feel like I've been pitched in at the deep end and I'm sinking. I'm not sure if this is because I lack the educational background to understand this stuff, if I'm simply not mathematically minded enough for modern computing (my maths was never great - my approach to design is often to simply debug until it works, then refactor until it looks neat), or whether I've simply been presented with too much of too radical a nature at once. But the only way to find out which it is is to try and learn it. So can anyone suggest some good places to start? Good books, tutorials or blogs? I've found a lot of internet material simply presupposes a level of understanding that I just don't have. Your advice is much appreciated. Help a middle-aged, stuck in the mud developer get enthusastic again! Please!

  Read the article

• Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery.

  - by Alex

  So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value?

  Read the article

• Using a message class static method taking in an action to wrap Try/Catch

  - by Chris Marisic

  I have a Result object that lets me pass around a List of event messages and I can check whether an action was successful or not. I've realized I've written this code in alot of places Result result; try { //Do Something ... //New result is automatically a success for not having any errors in it result = new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { //Extension method that returns a Result from the exception result = exception.ToResult(); } if(result.Success) .... What I'm considering is replacing this usage with public static Result CatchException(Action action) { try { action(); return new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { return exception.ToResult(); } } And then use it like var result = Result.CatchException(() => _model.Save(something)); Does anyone feel there's anything wrong with this or that I'm trading reusability for obscurity?

  Read the article

• How work with common utils project.

  - by ais

  For example, I have some project Common.Utils.csproj and use it in all other projects. I can store its (Utils) sourses in one repository and modify it only there, register dll in gac and use it as dll in other projects, or I can clone sourse anywhere I need, include project in solution, use it as source and push modifications. So, what is best practice?

  Read the article

• When to rewrite vs. upgrade?

  - by MrGumbe

  All custom legacy software needs changing, or so say our users. Sometimes they want a feature or two added and all that is necessary to change a bit of code, add a control, or some other minor upgrade task. Sometimes they want to ditch their error-prone VB5 desktop solution and rewrite the whole thing as a rich Web 2.0 ASP.NET MVC application. More often, however, the scope of changes to legacy functionality lies somewhere between these two extremes. What rules of thumb to you use to decide whether you should upgrade an existing application or start from scratch?

  Read the article

• Use the serialVersionUID or suppress warnings?

  - by Okami

  Dear all, first thing to note is the serialVersionUID of a class implementing Interface Serializable is not in question. What if we create a class that for example extends HttpServlet? It also should have a serialVersionUID. If someone knows that this object will never be serialized should he define it or add an annotation to suppress those warnings? What would you do and why? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Okami

  Read the article

• In which controller do you put the CRUD for the child part of a relationship?

  - by uriDium

  I am using ASP.Net MVC but this probably applies to all MVC patterns in general. My problem, for example I have companies and in each company I have a list of contacts. When I have selected a company I can see its details and a list of the contacts for that company. When I want to add a new contact for that company, should the implementation of that action go into the company controller as an "AddContact" action or should it go into the contact controller into a "New" action and we pass the Company ID in the URL? What is the usual way of dealing with this sort of thing in ASP.Net MVC? Is there a better stategy?

  Read the article

• Haskell function composition (.) and function application ($) idioms: correct use.

  - by Robert Massaioli

  I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

  Read the article

• What should I use to increase performance. View/Query/Temporary Table

  - by Shantanu Gupta

  I want to know the performance of using Views, Temp Tables and Direct Queries Usage in a Stored Procedure. I have a table that gets created every time when a trigger gets fired. I know this trigger will be fired very rare and only once at the time of setup. Now I have to use that created table from triggers at many places for fetching data and I confirms it that no one make any changes in that table. i.e ReadOnly Table. I have to use this tables data along with multiple tables to join and fetch result for further queries say select * from triggertable By Using temp table select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on select a,b, c from #tx --do something select d,e,f from #tx ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. By Using Views create view viewname ( select ... from triggertable join t2 join t3 and so on ) select a,b, c from viewname --do something select d,e,f from viewname ---do somethign --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. This View can be used in other places as well. So I will be creating at database rather than at sp By Using Direct Query select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something select a,b, c from select ... into #tx from triggertable join t2 join t3 join ... --do something . . --and so on --around 6-7 queries in a row in a stored procedure. Now I can create a view/temporary table/ directly query usage in all upcoming queries. What would be the best to use in this case.

  Read the article

• Is it better to adopt the same technologies used at work to be effective on your home projects ?

  - by systempuntoout

  Is it better to start developing an home project using the same technologies used at work to be more productive and effective? I'm not talking about a simple hello world web page but an home project with all bells and whistles that one day, maybe, you could sell on internet. This dilemma is often subject of flames between me and a friend. He thinks that if you want to make a great home-made project you need to use the same technologies used daily at work staying in the same scope too; for example, a c++ computer game programmer should develope an home-made c++ game. I'm pretty sure that developing using the same technologies used at work can be more productive at beginning, but surely less exciting and stimulating of working with other languages\ides\libraries out of your daily job. What's your opinion about that?

  Read the article

• What real life bad habits has programming given you? [closed]

  - by Jacob T. Nielsen

  Programming has given me a lot of bad habits and it continues to give me more everyday. But I have also gotten some bad habits from the mindset that I have put myself in. There simply are some things that are deeply rooted in my nature, though some of them I wish I could get rid of. A few: Looking for polymorphism, inheritance and patterns in all of God's creations. Explaining the size of something in pixels and colors in hex code. Using code related abstract terms in everyday conversations. How have you been damaged?

  Read the article

• How to insert an n:m-relationship with technical primary keys generated by a sequence?

  - by bitschnau

  Let's say I have two tables with several fields and in every table there is a primary key which is a technical id generated by a database sequence: table1 table2 ------------- ------------- field11 <pk> field21 <pk> field12 field22 field11 and field21 are generated by sequences. Also there is a n:m-relationship between table1 und table2, designed in table3: table3 ------------- field11 <fk> field21 <fk> The ids in table1 und table2 are generated during the insert statement: INSERT INTO table1 VALUES (table1_seq1.NEXTVAL, ... INSERT INTO table2 VALUES (table2_seq1.NEXTVAL, ... Therefore I don't know the primary key of the added row in the data-access-layer of my program, because the generation of the pk happens completely in the database. What's the best practice to update table3 now? How can I gain access to the primary key of the rows I just inserted?

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC Filters: How to set Viewdata for Dropdown based on action paramter

  - by CRice

  Hi, Im loading an entity 'Member' from its id in route data. [ListItemsForMembershipType(true)] public ActionResult Edit(Member someMember) {...} The attribute on the action loads the membership type list items for a dropdown box and sticks it in viewdata. This is fine for add forms, and search forms (it gets all active items) but I need the attribute to execute BASED ON THE VALUE someMember.MembershipTypeId, because its current value must always be present when loading the item (i.e. all active items, plus the one from the loaded record). So the question is, what is the standard pattern for this? How can my attribute accept the value or should I be loading the viewdata for the drop down in a controller supertype or during model binding or something else? It is in an attribute now because the code to set the viewdata would otherwise be duplicated in each usage in each action.

  Read the article

• Haskel dot (.) and dollar ($) composition: correct use.

  - by Robert Massaioli

  I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Is it weird or strange to make multiple WCF Calls to build a ViewModel before presenting it?

  - by Nate Bross

  Am I doing something wrong if I need code like this in a Controller? Should I be doing something differently? public ActionResult Details(int id) { var svc = new ServiceClient(); var model = new MyViewModel(); model.ObjectA = svc.GetObjectA(id); model.ObjectB = svc.GetObjectB(id); model.ObjectC = svc.GetObjectC(id); return View(model); } The reason I ask, is because I've got Linq-To-Sql on the back end and a WCF Service which exposes functionality through a set of DTOs which are NOT the Linq-To-Sql generated classes and thus do not have the parent/child properties; but in the detail view, I would like to see some of the parent/child data.

  Read the article

• Where should my "filtering" logic reside with Linq-2-SQL and ASP.NET-MVC in View or Controller?

  - by Nate Bross

  I have a main Table, with several "child" tables. TableA and TableAChild1 and TableAChild2. I have a view which shows the information in TableA, and then has two columns of all items in TableAChild1 and TableAChild2 respectivly, they are rendered with Partial views. Both child tables have a bit field for VisibleToAll, and depending on user role, I'd like to either display all related rows, or related rows where VisibleToAll = true. This code, feels like it should be in the controller, but I'm not sure how it would look, because as it stands, the controller (limmited version) looks like this: return View("TableADetailView", repos.GetTableA(id)); Would something like this be even work, and would it be bad what if my DataContext gets submitted, would that delete all the rows that have VisibleToAll == false? var tblA = repos.GetTableA(id); tblA.TableAChild1 = tblA.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); tblA.TableAChild2 = tblA.TableAChild2.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); return View("TableADetailView", tblA); It would also be simple to add that logic to the RendarPartial call from the main view: <% Html.RenderPartial("TableAChild1", Model.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); %>

  Read the article

• PHP explode and set to empty string the missing pieces

  - by Marco Demaio

  What's the best way to accomplish the following. I have strings in this format: $s1 = "name1|type1"; //(pipe is the separator) $s2 = "name2|type2"; $s3 = "name3"; //(in some of them type can be missing) Let's assume namen/typen are strings and they can not contain a pipe. Since I need to exctract the name/type separetly, I do: $temp = explode($s1, '|'); $name = $temp[0]; $type = ( isset($temp[1]) ? $temp[1] : '' ); Is there an easier (smarter whatever faster) way to do this without having to do isset($temp[1]) or count($temp). Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to differentiate between exceptions i can show the user, and ones i can't?

  - by Ian Boyd

  i have some business logic that traps some logically invalid situations, e.g. trying to reverse a transaction that was already reversed. In this case the correct action is to inform the user: Transaction already reversed or Cannot reverse a reversing transaction or You do not have permission to reverse transactions or This transaction is on a session that has already been closed or This transaction is too old to be reversed The question is, how do i communicate these exceptional cases back to the calling code, so they can show the user? Do i create a separate exception for each case: catch (ETransactionAlreadyReversedException) MessageBox.Show('Transaction already reversed') catch (EReversingAReversingTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('Cannot reverse a reversing transaction') catch (ENoPermissionToReverseTranasctionException) MessageBox.Show('You do not have permission to reverse transactions') catch (ECannotReverseTransactionOnAlredyClosedSessionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is on a session that has already been closed') catch (ECannotReverseTooOldTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is too old to be reversed') Downside for this is that when there's a new logical case to show the user: Tranasctions created by NSL cannot be reversed i don't simply show the user a message, and instead it leaks out as an unhandled excpetion, when really it should be handled with another MessageBox. The alternative is to create a single exception class: `EReverseTransactionException` With the understanding that any exception of this type is a logical check, that should be handled with a message box: catch (EReverseTransactionException) But it's still understood that any other exceptions, ones that involve, for example, an memory ECC parity error, continue unhandled. In other words, i don't convert all errors that can be thrown by the ReverseTransaction() method into EReverseTransactionException, only ones that are logically invalid cause of the user.

  Read the article

• Elegant solution for line-breaks (PHP)

  - by Nimbuz

  $var = "Hi there"."<br/>"."Welcome to my website"."<br/>;" echo $var; Is there an elegant way to handle line-breaks in PHP? I'm not sure about other languages, but C++ has eol so something thats more readable and elegant to use? Thanks

  Read the article

• Proper way to name booleans that are A or B not True False

  - by Hurricanepkt

  I have a field that indicates whether someone wars a commission or a fee. In sql its going to be a bit field. How should I name it?

  Read the article

• Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

  - by Steve Steiner

  Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

  Read the article

• package private static member class vs. package private class

  - by Helper Method

  I was writing two implementations of a linked list for an assignment, a doubly linked list and a circular doubly linked list. Now as the class representing a Link within the linked list is the same in both implementations, I want to use it in both. Now I wonder which approach would be better: Implement the Link class as a package private static member class in the first implementation and then use this class in the second implementation or make the Link class a package private class.

  Read the article

• What is a mantainable way of saving "star rating" in a database?

  - by Montecristo

  I'll use the jQuery plugin for presenting the user with a nice interface The request is to display 5 stars, up to a total score of 10 (2 points per star). By now I thought about using 7/10 as a format for that value, but what if at some point in the future I'll receive a request like We would like to give users more choice, let's increase the total score to 20 (so that each star contributes with a maximum of 4 points) I'll end up with a table with mixed values for the "star rating" column: some will be like 7/10 while others will be like 14/20. Is it ok for you to have this difference in the database and deal with it in the logic layer to have it consistent? Or is preferred another way so that querying the table will not result in inconsistent results outside the application? Maybe floating point values could help me, is it better to store that value as a number less than or equal to one? So in each of the two examples the resulting value stored in the database would be 0,7, as a number, not a varchar, which can be queried also outside the application. What do you think?

  Read the article

• Preprocessor #define vs. function pointer - best practice?

  - by Dustin

  I recently started a small personal project (RGB value to BGR value conversion program) in C, and I realised that a function that converts from RGB to BGR can not only perform the conversion but also the inversion. Obviously that means I don't really need two functions rgb2bgr and bgr2rgb. However, does it matter whether I use a function pointer instead of a macro? For example: int rgb2bgr (const int rgb); /* * Should I do this because it allows the compiler to issue * appropriate error messages using the proper function name, * not to mention possible debugging benefits? */ int (*bgr2rgb) (const int bgr) = rgb2bgr; /* * Or should I do this since it is merely a convenience * and they're really the same function anyway? */ #define bgr2rgb(bgr) (rgb2bgr (bgr)) I'm not necessarily looking for a change in execution efficiency as it's more of a subjective question out of curiosity. I am well aware of the fact that type safety is neither lost nor gained using either method. Would the function pointer merely be a convenience or are there more practical benefits to be gained of which I am unaware?

  Read the article

• Is it a good idea to define a variable in a local block for a case of a switch statement?

  - by Paperflyer

  I have a rather long switch-case statement. Some of the cases are really short and trivial. A few are longer and need some variables that are never used anywhere else, like this: switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: { int specialVariable = 5; // Do something complex with specialVariable } break; } The alternative would be to declare that variable before going into the switch like this: int specialVariable = 5; switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: // Do something complex with specialVariable break; } This can get rather confusing since it is not clear to which case the variable belongs and it uses some unnecessary memory. However, I have never seen this usage anywhere else. Do you think it is a good idea to declare variables locally in a block for a single case?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137  | Next Page >