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 >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • why copy and paste codes is dangerous

    - by Yigang Wu
    sometimes, my boss will complain us why we need so long time to implement a feature, actually, the feature has been implemented in other AP before, you just need to copy and paste codes from there. The cost should be low. It's really a hard question, because copy and paste codes is not a easy thing from my point. Do you have any good reason to explain your boss who doesn't know technology?

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton design pattern.

    - by Artem Barger
    Recently I've bumped into realization/implementation of Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked in the following way (I have adopted it from real life example): // a lot of methods is omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that instance field is initiated on the heap, that means there is a memory allocation. That is completely unclear for me is when does exactly memory is going to be deallocated? Or there is a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in implementation. PS. And main question how to implement it in the right way?

    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

  • JAR files, don't they just bloat and slow Java down?

    - by Josamoto
    Okay, the question might seem dumb, but I'm asking it anyways. After struggling for hours to get a Spring + BlazeDS project up and running, I discovered that I was having problems with my project as a result of not including the right dependencies for Spring etc. There were .jars missing from my WEB-INF/lib folder, yes, silly me. After a while, I managed to get all the .jar files where they belong, and it comes at a whopping 12.5MB at that, and there's more than 30 of them! Which concerns me, but it probably and hopefully shouldn't be concerned. How does Java operate in terms of these JAR files, they do take up quite a bit of hard drive space, taking into account that it's compressed and compiled source code. So that can really quickly populate a lot of RAM and in an instant. My questions are: Does Java load an entire .jar file into memory when say for instance a class in that .jar is instantiated? What about stuff that's in the .jar that never gets used. Do .jars get cached somehow, for optimized application performance? When a single .jar is loaded, I understand that the thing sits in memory and is available across multiple HTTP requests (i.e. for the lifetime of the server instance running), unlike PHP where objects are created on the fly with each request, is this assumption correct? When using Spring, I'm thinking, I had to include all those fiddly .jars, wouldn't I just be better off just using native Java, with say at least and ORM solution like Hibernate? So far, Spring just took extra time configuring, extra hard drive space, extra memory, cpu consumption, so I'm concerned that the framework is going to cost too much application performance just to get for example, IoC implemented with my BlazeDS server. There still has to come ORM, a unit testing framework and bits and pieces here and there. It's just so easy to bloat up a project quickly and irresponsibly easily. Where do I draw the line?

    Read the article

  • Documentation style: how do you differentiate variable names from the rest of the text within a comm

    - by Alix
    Hi, This is a quite superfluous and uninteresting question, I'm afraid, but I always wonder about this. When you're commenting code with inline comments (as opposed to comments that will appear in the generated documentation) and the name of a variable appears in the comment, how do you differentiate it from normal text? E.g.: // Try to parse type. parsedType = tryParse(type); In the comment, "type" is the name of the variable. Do you mark it in any way to signify that it's a symbol and not just part of the comment's text? I've seen things like this: // Try to parse "type". // Try to parse 'type'. // Try to parse *type*. // Try to parse <type>. // Try to parse [type]. And also: // Try to parse variable type. (I don't think the last one is very helpful; it's a bit confusing; you could think "variable" is an adjective there) Do you have any preference? I find that I need to use some kind of marker; otherwise the comments are sometimes ambiguous, or at least force you to reread them when you realise a particular word in the comment was actually the name of a variable. (In comments that will appear in the documentation I use the appropriate tags for the generator, of course: @code, <code></code>, etc) Thanks!

    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

  • 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

  • Extend legacy site with another server-side programming platform best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    Company I work for have a site developed 6-8 years ago by a team that was enthusiastic enough to use their own private PHP-based CMS. I have to put dynamic data from one intranet company database on this site in one week: 2-3 pages. I contacted company site administrator and she showed me administrative part - CMS allows only to insert html blocks & manage site map (site is deployed on machine that is inside company & fully accessible & upgradeable). I'm not a PHP-guy & I don't want to dive into legacy hardly-who-ever-heard-about CMS engine I also don't want to contact developers team, 'cos I'm not sure they are still present and capable enough to extend this old days site and it'll take too much time anyway. I am about to deploy helper asp.net site on IIS with 2-3 pages required & refer helper site via iframe from present site. New pages will allow to download some dynamic content from present site also. Is it ok and what are the pitfalls with iframe approach?

    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

  • 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

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 >