Search Results

Search found 31038 results on 1242 pages for 'michael best'.

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 133/1242 | < Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Best way to map/join two autogenerated enums

    - by tomlip
    What is the best C++ (not C++11) way of joining two enums from autogenerated class similar to one presented below: namespace A { namespace B { ... class CarInfo { enum State { // basically same enums defined in different classes Running, Stopped, Broken } } class BikeInfo { enum State { // basically same enums defined in different classes Running, Stopped, Broken } } } } What is needed is unified enum State for both classes that is seen to outside world alongside with safe type conversion. The best and probably most straightforward way I came up with is to create external enum: enum State { Running, Stopped, Broken } together with conversion functions State stateEnumConv(A::B::CarInfo::State aState); State stateEnumConv(A::B::BikeInfo::State aState); A::B::CarInfo::State stateEnumConv(State aState); A::B::BikeInfo::State stateEnumConv(State aState); Direction into right approach is needed. Gosh coming from C I hate those long namespaces everywhere an I wish it could be only A::B level like in presented example. Four conversion functions seem redundant note that CarInfo::State and BikeInfo::State has same enum "members".

    Read the article

  • TCP Message Structure with XML

    - by metdos
    Hello Everybody, I'm sending messages over TCP/IP and on the other side I parse TCP message.For example this is one of the sent messages. $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&requestId=123&username=metdos&password=123)$EDKMSG Clarification: $DKMSG( //Start )$EDKMSG //End requestType //Parameter REQUEST_LOGIN //Parameter Value Now I also want to add an Xml file to my message. I'm considering this option: $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&xmlData= <Item id="56D@MIT" type="SIGNAL"> <Label> <Text>56D</Text> <X1>10</X1> <Y1>40</Y1> <RotateAngle>90</RotateAngle> </Label> <X1>0</X1> <Y1>20</Y1> <Width>35</Width> <Height>10</Height> <Source>sgs3lr</Source> </Item> )$EDKMSG There are problems with this way: 1-)It doesn't seem right to me. 2-)I have to handle delimeter "=" with much more care or I need to change it in parameters. What are your suggestions, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Am I using too much jQuery? When am I crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately I found myself using jQuery and JavaScript a lot, often to do the same things that I did before using CSS. For example, I alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using JavaScript/jQuery. Is this acceptable? Or should I keep using CSS for these kinds of things? So the real question is: When I'm using too much jQuery? How can I understand when I'm crossing the line?

    Read the article

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

    - 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

  • Lock thread using somthing other than a object

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

    Read the article

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

    - by whatispunk
    I love auto-implemented properties in C# but lately there's been this elephant standing in my cubicle and I don't know what to do with him. If I use auto-implemented properties (hereafter "aip") then I no longer have a private backing field to use internally. This is fine because the aip has no side-effects. But what if later on I need to add some extra processing in the get or set? Now I need to create a backing-field so I can expand my getters and setters. This is fine for external code using the class, because they won't notice the difference. But now all of the internal references to the aip are going to invoke these side-effects when they access the property. Now all internal access to the once aip must be refactored to use the backing-field. So my question is, what do most of you do? Do you use auto-implemented properties or do you prefer to always use a backing-field? What do you think about properties with side-effects?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice for accessing Model using MVVM pattern

    - by Dzenand
    I have a database that communicates with webservices with my Model (own thread) and exposes Data Objects. My UI application consists of different Views and ViewModels and Custom Controls. I'm using ServiceProvider (IServiceProvider) to access the Model and route the events to the UI thread. Communication between the ViewModels is handeled by a Messenger. Is this way to go? I was also wondering what is the best way to strucutre the DataObjects At the moment i have the DataObjects that have a hierarchy structure but does not support INotifyProperty though the children list are of type of ObservableCollection. I have no possiblity to implement notifypropertychange on the properties. I was wondering the best way of making them MVVM friendly. Implementing a partial class and adding all the properties or commands that are necessary or wrapping all the DataObjects and keep the Model list and MVVM list in sync. All thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Why is short project lifetime and other situation-specific reasons used to excuse crappy code? [clos

    - by sharptooth
    Every now and then (including on SO) people say things implying that "if the project is short lived you can leave obvious defects there" or "that memory leak only accounts for 100 bytes per whole program lifetime and could be left". Now in my practice I always reuse company-owned code to the greatest extent I can. Like if I need something and I can find it in the company codebase I take it from there and reuse or adapt. This means that any crappy code will be reused as well and I might notice or not notice defects therein. So the defect in some "test we only need for a month" can slip into a proram we ship to customers. And a leak that "only accounted for 100 bytes per lifetime" now could account for 100 bytes 10 times per second in a server application intended to run for months. That's why I don't understand why excuses like that are offered. Is our compamy the only one having a source control? Or are we the only company that requires writing human-readable code? Could anyone shed a light on why people seriously offer such excuses?

    Read the article

  • C++ Headers/Source Files

    - by incrediman
    (Duplicate of C++ Code in Header Files) What is the standard way to split up C++ classes between header and source files? Am I supposed to put everything in the header file? Or should I declare the classes in the header file and define them in a .cpp file (source file)? Sorry if I'm shaky on the terminology here (declare, define, etc). So what's the standard?

    Read the article

  • C++ include header conventions

    - by user231536
    Suppose I have a file X.h which defines a class X, whose methods are implemented in X.cc. The file X.h includes a file Y.h because it needs Y to define class X. In X.cc, we can refer to Y because X.h has already included Y.h. Should I still include Y.h in X.cc ? I understand that I don't need to and I can depend on header guards to prevent multiple inclusions. But on the one hand, including Y.h makes X.cc a little more independent of X.h (can't be completely independent of course). What is the accepted practice? Another example: including <iostream> in both .h and .cc files. I see some people do this and some don't.

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    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

  • Performing centralized authorization for multiple applications

    - by Vaibhav
    Here's a question that I have been wrestling with for a while. We have a situation wherein we have a number of applications that we have created. These have grown organically over a period of time. All of these applications have permissions code built into them that controls access to various parts of the application depending on whether the currently logged in user has the necessary permissions or not. Alongside these applications is a utility application which allows an administrator to map users to permissions for all applications - the way it works is that every application has code which reads this external database of the said utility application to check if the currently logged in user has the necessary permission or not. Now, the question is this. Should the user-permissions mapping information reside in and be owned by the applications themselves, or is it okay to have this information reside within an external entity/DB (as in this case the utility application's database). Part of me thinks that application permissions are very specific to the application context itself, so shouldn't be separated from the application itself. But I am not sure. Any comments?

    Read the article

  • Using static strings to define input field names in JSPs - good idea or not?

    - by Derek Clarkson
    Hi all, I've just be asked to work on a large portal project and have been looking through the established code. I keep finding this in the jsps: <input class="portlet-form-button" name="<%=ModifyUserProfile.FORM_FIRST_TIME_LOGIN_SUBMIT%>" type="submit" ... The authors are using static strings defined in classes to define the names of input fields and buttons in jsp forms. I've never seen this done before and was wondering if this is common practice. I'm inclined to think not, but I'm asking because, apart from centralising names which I would have thought are not likely to change, I can't see the reason why. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • How to handle recurring execution?

    - by ShaneC
    I am trying to validate the solution I came up for what I think is a fairly typical problem. I have a service running and every 10 minutes it should do something. I've ended up with the following: private bool isRunning = true; public void Execute() { while(isRunning) { if(isRunning) { DoSomething(); m_AutoResetEvent.WaitOne(new Timespan(0, 10, 0)); } } } public void Stop() { isRunning = false; m_AutoResetEvent.Set(); } The immediate potential problems I can see is that I'm not doing any sort of locking around the isRunning modification in Stop() which gets called by another thread but I'm not sure I really need to? The worst that I think could happen is that it runs one extra cycle. Beyond that are there any obvious problems with this code? Is there a better way to solve this problem that I'm unaware of?

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • Arguments to convince to switch from CVS to SVN

    - by ereOn
    Hi, The UNIX department of my company currently uses CVS as source-version control system. They use it in a very strange way: different repositories for development/testing/production code (for the same project), no one tags anything, weird directory architecture, and so on. The system has been set for ages but now, I have an opportunity to organize a meeting where I have to suggest changes. I'd like to make them change from CVS to SVN (Mercurial or Git might be even better, however I can't really recommand using a system I don't know well, and switching to SVN will already be a great step forward). I don't have much experience with CVS so I can't compare them efficiently: I just know it doesn't support atomic operations and that it is deprecated. What killer arguments would you use to convince my collegues to do the switch ? Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Why cast null before checking if object is equal to null?

    - by jacerhea
    I was looking through the "Domain Oriented N-Layered .NET 4.0 Sample App" project and ran across some code that I do not understand. In this project they often use syntax like the following to check arguments for null: public GenericRepository(IQueryableContext context,ITraceManager traceManager) { if (context == (IQueryableContext)null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context", Resources.Messages.exception_ContainerCannotBeNull); Why would you cast null to the type of the object you are checking for null?

    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

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 | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >