Search Results

Search found 13692 results on 548 pages for 'bad 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 135/548 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

  • Continuous integration with multiple branch development

    - by ryanprayogo
    In the project that I'm working on, we are using SVN with 'Stable Trunk' strategy. What that means is that for each bug that is found, QA opens a bug ticket and assigns it to a developer. Then, a developer fixes that bug and checks it in a branch (off trunk, let's call this the bug branch) and that branch will only contain fixes for that particular bug ticket When we decided to do a release, for each bug fixes that we want to release to the customer, a developer will merge all the fixes from several bug branch to trunk and proceed with the normal QA cycle. The problem is that we use trunk as the codebase for our CI job (Hudson, specifically), and therefore, for all commits to the bug branch, it will miss the daily build until it gets merged to trunk when we decided to release the new version of the software. Obviously, that defeats the purpose of having CI. What is the proper way to fix this issue?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • What's quicker and better to determine if an array key exists in PHP?

    - by alex
    Consider these 2 examples $key = 'jim'; // example 1 if (isset($array[$key])) { doWhatIWant(); } // example 2 if (array_key_exists($key, $array)) { doWhatIWant(); } I'm interested in knowing if either of these are better. I've always used the first, but have seen a lot of people use the second example on this site. So, which is better? Faster? Clearer intent? Update Thanks for the quality answers. I now understand the difference between the 2. A benchmark states that isset() alone is quicker than array_key_exists(). However, if you want the isset() to behave like array_key_exists() it is slower.

    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

  • How do you determine how coarse or fine-grained a 'responsibility' should be when using the single r

    - by Mark Rogers
    In the SRP, a 'responsibility' is usually described as 'a reason to change', so that each class (or object?) should have only one reason someone should have to go in there and change it. But if you take this to the extreme fine-grain you could say that an object adding two numbers together is a responsibility and a possible reason to change. Therefore the object should contain no other logic, because it would produce another reason for change. I'm curious if there is anyone out there that has any strategies for 'scoping', the single-responsibility principle that's slightly less objective?

    Read the article

  • Parallel Dev: Should developers work within the same branch?

    - by Zombies
    Should multiple developers work within the same branch, and update - modify - commit ? Or should each developer have his/her own each branch exclusively? And how would sharing branches impact an environment where you are doing routine maintenance as opposed to unmaintained code streams? Also, how would this work if you deploy each developers work as soon as it is done and passes testing (rapidly, as opposed to putting all of their work into a single release).

    Read the article

  • Subclassing and adding data members

    - by Marius
    I have an hierarchy of classes that looks like the following: class Critical { public: Critical(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } virtual ~Critical() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } protected: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor : public Critical { public: CriticalFlavor(int a, int b, int flavor) : Critical(a, b), m_flavor(flavor) { } virtual ~CriticalFlavor() { } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } protected: int m_flavor; }; class CriticalTwist : public Critical { public: CriticalTwist(int a, int b, int twist) : Critical(a, b), m_twist(twist) { } virtual ~CriticalTwist() { } int GetTwist() { return m_twist; } void SetTwist(int twist) { m_twist = twist; } protected: int m_twist; }; The above does not seem right to me in terms of the design and what bothers me the most is the fact that the addition of member variables seems to drive the interface of these classes (the real code that does the above is a little more complex but still embracing the same pattern). That will proliferate when in need for another "Critical" class that just adds some other property. Does this feel right to you? How could I refactor such code? An idea would be to have just a set of interfaces and use composition when it comes to the base object like the following: class Critical { public: virtual int GetA() = 0; virtual int GetB() = 0; virtual void SetA(int a) = 0; virtual void SetB(int b) = 0; }; class CriticalImpl { public: CriticalImpl(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } ~CriticalImpl() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } private: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor { public: virtual int GetFlavor() = 0; virtual void SetFlavor(int flavor) = 0; }; class CriticalFlavorImpl : public Critical, public CriticalFlavor { public: CriticalFlavorImpl(int a, int b, int flavor) : m_flavor(flavor), m_critical(new CriticalImpl(a, b)) { } ~CriticalFlavorImpl() { delete m_critical; } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } int GetA() { return m_critical-GetA(); } int GetB() { return m_critical-GetB(); } void SetA(int a) { m_critical-SetA(a); } void SetB(int b) { m_critical-SetB(b); } private: int m_flavor; CriticalImpl* m_critical; };

    Read the article

  • Implementing Tagging System with PHP and mySQL. Caching help!!!

    - by Hamid Sarfraz
    With reference to this post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2122546/how-to-implement-tag-counting I have implemented the suggested 3 table tagging system completely. To count the number of Articles per tag, i am using another column named tagArticleCount in the tag definition table. (other columns are tagId, tagText, tagUrl, tagArticleCount). If i implement realtime editing of this table, so that whenever user adds another tag to article or deletes an existing tag, the tag_definition_table is updated to update the counter of the added/removed tag. This will cost an extra query each time any modification is made. (at the same time, related link entry for tag and article is deleted from tagLinkTable). An alternative to this is not allowing any real time editing to the counter, instead use CRONs to update counter of each tag after a specified time period. Here comes the problem that i want to discuss. This can be seen as caching the article count in database. Can you please help me find a way to present the articles in a list when a tag is explored and when the article counter for that tag is not up to date. For example: 1. Counter shows 50 articles, but there are infact 55 entries in the tag link table (that links tags and articles). 2. Counter shows 50 articles, but there are infact 45 extries in the tag link table. How to handle these 2 scenerios given in example. I am going to use APC to keep cache of these counters. Consider it too in your solution. Also discuss performance in the realtime / CRONNED counter updates.

    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

  • Pattern for database-wrapper in java

    - by Space_C0wb0y
    I am currently writing a java-class that wraps an SQLite database. This class has two ways to be instantiated: Open an existing database. Create a new database. This is what I cam up with: public class SQLiteDatabaseWrapper { public static SQLiteDatabaseWrapper openExisting(File PathToDB) { return new SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(PathToDB); } public static SQLiteDatabaseWrapper createNew(File PathToDB) { CreateAndInitializeNewDatabase(PathToDB); return new SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(PathToDB); } private SQLiteDatabaseWrapper(File PathToDB) { // Open connection and setup wrapper } } Is this the way to go in Java, or is there any other best practice for this situation?

    Read the article

  • How to evade writing a lot of repetitive code when mapping?

    - by JPCF
    I have a data access layer (DAL) using Entity Framework, and I want to use Automapper to communicate with upper layers. I will have to map data transfer objects (DTOs) to entities as the first operation on every method, process my inputs, then proceed to map from entities to DTOs. What would you do to skip writing this code? As an example, see this: //This is a common method in my DAL public CarDTO getCarByOwnerAndCreditStatus(OwnerDTO ownerDto, CreditDto creditDto) { //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<OwnerDTO,Owner>(); Mapper.CreateMap<CreditDTO,Credit>(); Owner owner = Mapper.map(ownerDto); Owner credit = Mapper.map(creditDto) //... Some code processing the mapped DTOs //I want to automatize this code on all methods similar to this Mapper.CreateMap<Car,CarDTO>(); Car car = Mapper.map(ownedCar); return car; }

    Read the article

  • What is the reason not to use select * ?

    - by Chris Lively
    I've seen a number of people claim that you should specifically name each column you want in your select query. Assuming I'm going to use all of the columns anyway, why would I not use SELECT *? Even considering the question from 9/24, I don't think this is an exact duplicate as I'm approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective. One of our principles is to not optimize before it's time. With that in mind, it seems like using SELECT * should be the preferred method until it is proven to be a resource issue or the schema is pretty much set in stone. Which, as we know, won't occur until development is completely done. That said, is there an overriding issue to not use SELECT *?

    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

  • Nested Array with one foreach Loop?

    - by streetparade
    I need to have access to a array which looks like this. Array ( [0] => Array ( [54] => Array ( [test] => 54 [tester] => result ) ) ) foreach($array as $key=>$value) { echo $key;// prints 0 echo $value;// prints Array /* now i can iterate through $value but i dont want it solve that way example: foreach($value as $k=>$v) { echo $k;//prints test echo $v; //prints 54 } */ } How can iterate just once ? to get the values of test and tester? I hope i could explain my problem clear

    Read the article

  • Truth tables in code? How to structure state machine?

    - by HanClinto
    I have a (somewhat) large truth table / state machine that I need to implement in my code (embedded C). I anticipate the behavior specification of this state machine to change in the future, and so I'd like to keep this easily modifiable in the future. My truth table has 4 inputs and 4 outputs. I have it all in an Excel spreadsheet, and if I could just paste that into my code with a little formatting, that would be ideal. I was thinking I would like to access my truth table like so: u8 newState[] = decisionTable[input1][input2][input3][input4]; And then I could access the output values with: setOutputPin( LINE_0, newState[0] ); setOutputPin( LINE_1, newState[1] ); setOutputPin( LINE_2, newState[2] ); setOutputPin( LINE_3, newState[3] ); But in order to get that, it looks like I would have to do a fairly confusing table like so: static u8 decisionTable[][][][][] = {{{{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}, {{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}}, {{{ 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}, {{{{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}, {{{ 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}; Those nested brackets can be somewhat confusing -- does anyone have a better idea for how I can keep a pretty looking table in my code? Thanks! Edit based on HUAGHAGUAH's answer: Using an amalgamation of everyone's input (thanks -- I wish I could "accept" 3 or 4 of these answers), I think I'm going to try it as a two dimensional array. I'll index into my array using a small bit-shifting macro: #define SM_INPUTS( in0, in1, in2, in3 ) ((in0 << 0) | (in1 << 1) | (in2 << 2) | (in3 << 3)) And that will let my truth table array look like this: static u8 decisionTable[][] = { { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}; And I can then access my truth table like so: decisionTable[ SM_INPUTS( line1, line2, line3, line4 ) ] I'll give that a shot and see how it works out. I'll also be replacing the 0's and 1's with more helpful #defines that express what each state means, along with /**/ comments that explain the inputs for each line of outputs. Thanks for the help, everyone!

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    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

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 | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >