Search Results

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

Page 135/405 | < Previous Page | 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142  | Next Page >

• Is there a class like a Dictionary without a Value template? Is HashSet<T> the correct answer?

  - by myotherme

  I have 3 tables: Foos, Bars and FooBarConfirmations I want to have a in-memory list of FooBarConfirmations by their hash: FooID BarID Hash 1 1 1_1 2 1 2_1 1 2 1_2 2 2 2_2 What would be the best Class to use to store this type of structure in-memory, so that I can quickly check to see if a combination exists like so: list.Contains("1_2"); I can do this with Dictionary<string,anything>, but it "feels" wrong. HashSet looks like the right tool for the job, but does it use some form of hashing algorithm in the background to do the lookups efficiently?

  Read the article

• Symfony 1.3: Any opinion about this code? Coud be shorter or better?

  - by user248959

  Hi, I need your opinion about this code below. I have a list of messages: each message has a link that change the state of the message (read - non read). In the partial "_message" i have this: <div class="switching_link" id="switching_link_<?php echo $message ?>"> echo include_partial('link_switch_state', array('message' => $message)) </div> In the partial "_link_switch_state" i have this: if((int)$message->getState() == 1) { $string_state_message="non read"; } else { $string_state_message="read"; } echo link_to_remote('Mark as '.$string_state_message, array( 'url' => 'message/switchState?id='.$message->getId(), 'update' => 'switching_link_'.$message, "complete" => "switchClassMessage('$message');", )); And in message/actions/actions.class.php i have this: public function executeSwitchState(sfWebRequest $request) { // searching the message we want to change its state. $this->messages = Doctrine::getTable('Message')->findById($request->getParameter('id')); // changing the state of the message. if($this->messages[0]->getState() == 1) { $this->messages[0]->setState(0); } else { $this->messages[0]->setState(1); } $this->messages[0]->save(); // rendering the partial that shows the link ("Mark as read/non read"). return $this->renderPartial('mensaje/link_switch_state', array( 'message' => $this->messages[0])); } Regards Javi

  Read the article

• Is there a case for parameterising using Abstract classes rather than Interfaces?

  - by Chris

  I'm currently developing a component based API that is heavily stateful. The top level components implement around a dozen interfaces each. The stock top-level components therefore sit ontop of a stack of Abstract implementations which in turn contain multiple mixin implementations and implement multiple mixin interfaces. So far, so good (I hope). The problem is that the base functionality is extremely complex to implement (1,000s of lines in 5 layers of base classes) and therefore I do not wish for component writers to implement the interfaces themselves but rather to extend my base classes (where all the boiler plate code is already written). If the API therefore accepts interfaces rather than references to the Abstract implementation that I wish for component writers to extends, then I have a risk that the implementer will not perform the validation that is both required and assumed by other areas of code. Therefore, my question is, is it sometimes valid to paramerise API methods using an abstract implementation reference rather than a reference to the interface(s) that it implements? Do you have an example of a well-designed API that uses this technique or am I trying to talk myself into bad-practice?

  Read the article

• Is there any difference between var name = function() {} & function name() {} in Javascript?

  - by Fletcher Moore

  Suppose we are inside a function and not in the global namespace. function someGlobalFunction() { var utilFunction1 = function() { } function utilFunction2 () { } utilFunction1(); utilFunction2(); } Are these synonymous? And do these functions completely cease to exist when someGlobalFunction returns? Should I prefer one or the other for readability or some other reason?

  Read the article

• To change checkbox text or to not change?

  - by Axarydax

  Hi, I'm having an argument with a co-worker, and I'm trying to convince him that it's a bad idea to change checkbox text (label) according to the checkbox state. For example, we have a combobox that automatically picks selected value (and is disabled) when checkbox next to it is checked and is enabled when checkbox is cleared. His idea is to show Autoselect when checkbox is checked and Manual select when it's cleared. I'm sure that this will confuse the user as users tend to think that checking a checkbox next to a verb will make it true, only to find that the label has changed to something else. What is your opinion on this matter? P.S. I remember reading about changing checkbox text somewhere, in a book or blog article, but can't remember where. It would be great to have this in writing :-)

  Read the article

• Dependency injection in C++

  - by Yorgos Pagles

  This is also a question that I asked in a comment in one of Miško Hevery's google talks that was dealing with dependency injection but it got buried in the comments. I wonder how can the factory / builder step of wiring the dependencies together can work in C++. I.e. we have a class A that depends on B. The builder will allocate B in the heap, pass a pointer to B in A's constructor while also allocating in the heap and return a pointer to A. Who cleans up afterwards? Is it good to let the builder clean up after it's done? It seems to be the correct method since in the talk it says that the builder should setup objects that are expected to have the same lifetime or at least the dependencies have longer lifetime (I also have a question on that). What I mean in code: class builder { public: builder() : m_ClassA(NULL),m_ClassB(NULL) { } ~builder() { if (m_ClassB) { delete m_ClassB; } if (m_ClassA) { delete m_ClassA; } } ClassA *build() { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB); return m_ClassA; } }; Now if there is a dependency that is expected to last longer than the lifetime of the object we are injecting it into (say ClassC is that dependency) I understand that we should change the build method to something like: ClassA *builder::build(ClassC *classC) { m_ClassB = new class B; m_ClassA = new class A(m_ClassB, classC); return m_ClassA; } What is your preferred approach?

  Read the article

• Is it considered bad practice to have ViewModel objects hold the Dispatcher?

  - by stiank81

  My WPF application is structured using the MVVM pattern. The ViewModels will communicate asynchronously with a server, and when the requested data is returned a callback in the ViewModel is triggered, and it will do something with this data. This will run on a thread which is not the UI Thread. Sometimes these callbacks involve work that needs to be done on the UI thread, so I need the Dispatcher. This might be things such as: Adding data to an ObservableCollection Trigger Prism commands that will set something to be displayed in the GUI Creating WPF objects of some kind. I try to avoid the latter, but the two first points here I find to be reasonable things for ViewModels to do. So; is it okay to have ViewModels hold the Dispatcher to be able to Invoke commands for the UI thread? Or is this considered bad practice? And why?

  Read the article

• DataObjects.NET: a good (flawless, documented, support) ORM?

  - by David_CSharp

  I am looking for ORM frameworks, came along to NHibernate, Genome, L2S, Entity Framework and now the DataObjects.NET.. So far a I read the documentation it seems pretty cabable, but have you ever tried this ORM? Any issues/bugs with DO.NET would be approciated :)

  Read the article

• Best practice for writing sql statements in php.

  - by ghostz00

  Can someone point me towards a resource or show me an example of a good way of writing sql statements in php. Most statements seem so ugly and unreadable.

  Read the article

• Is there a "standard" way to implement Software Activation for .NET?

  - by dermdaly

  I've been looking at software activation systems for .NET and frankly found the websites out there underwhelming. I'm wondering if there's a "standard" way to do it in .NET? If not, does anyone with experience of them have a recommendation? I understand the arguments for and against activation systems, but still need to evaluate. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Patterns for avoiding jQuery silent fails

  - by Matias

  Is there any good practice to avoid your jQuery code silently fail? For example: $('.this #is:my(complexSelector)').doSomething(); I know that every time this line get executed, the selector is intended to match at least one element, or certain amount of elements. Is there any standard or good way to validate that? I thought about something like this: var $matchedElements = $('.this #is:my(complexSelector)'); if ($matchedElements.length < 0) throw 'No matched elements'; $matchedElements.doSomething(); Also I think unit testing would be a valid option instead of messing the code. My question may be silly, but I wonder whether there is a better option than the things that I'm currently doing or not. Also, maybe I'm in the wrong way checking if any element match my selector. However, as the page continues growing, the selectors could stop matching some elements and pieces of functionality could stop working inadvertently.

  Read the article

• Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

  - by Steve

  There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

  Read the article

• Is it advisable to have an interface as the return type?

  - by wb

  I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface? Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic. protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class { return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success)); } public IMessage Validate() { if (name.Length < 5) { validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater."); } else { validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid."); } return validateReturnType; } Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Should I *always* import my file references into the database in drupal?

  - by sprugman

  I have a cck type with an image field, and a unique_id text field. The file name of the image is based on the unique_id. All of the content, including the image itself is being generated automatically via another process, and I'm parsing what that generates into nodes. Rather than creating separate fields for the id and the image, and doing an official import of the image into the files table, I'm tempted to only create the id field and create the file reference in the theme layer. I can think of pros and cons: 1) Theme Layer Approach Pros: makes the import process much less complex don't have to worry about syncing the db with the file system as things change more flexible -- I can move my images around more easily if I want Cons: maybe not as much The Drupal Way™ not as pure -- I'll wind up with more logic on the theme side. 2) Import Approach Pros: import method is required if we ever wanted to make the files private (we won't.) safer? Maybe I'll know if there's a problem with the image at import time, rather than view time. Since I'll be bulk importing, that might make a difference. if I delete a node through the admin interface, drupal might be able to delete the file for me, as well. Con: more complex import and maintenance All else being equal, simpler is always better, so I'm leaning toward #1. Are there any other issues I'm missing? (Since this is an open ended question, I guess I'll make it a community wiki, whatever that means.)

  Read the article

• When should I use SnapsToDevicePixels in WPF 4.0?

  - by Mike B

  Can anyone suggest a guideline on when to use SnapsToDevicePixels in WPF 4.0? Should it only be used occasionally if there is an issue, liberally throughout an App, only on certain controls or what?

  Read the article

• organizing 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 reviewing developers?

  Read the article

• Why would you precede the main() function in C with a data type?

  - by Milktrader

  Many are familiar with the hello world program in C #include <stdio.h> main () { printf ("hello world"); return 0; } Why do some precede the main () function with int as in: int main() Also, I've seen the word 'void' entered inside the () as in: int main(void) It seems like extra typing for nothing, but maybe it's a best practice that pays dividends in other situations? Also, why precede main() with an int if you're returning a character string? If anything, one would expect: char main(void) I'm also foggy about why we return 0 at the end of the function.

  Read the article

• Java: Inputting text from a file using split

  - by 00PS

  I am inputting an adjacency list for a graph. There are three columns of data (vertex, destination, edge) separated by a single space. Here is my implementation so far: FileStream in = new FileStream("input1.txt"); Scanner s = new Scanner(in); String buffer; String [] line = null; while (s.hasNext()) { buffer = s.nextLine(); line = buffer.split("\\s+"); g.add(line[0]); System.out.println("Added vertex " + line[0] + "."); g.addEdge(line[0], line[1], Integer.parseInt(line[2])); System.out.println("Added edge from " + line[0] + " to " + line[1] + " with a weight of " + Integer.parseInt(line[2]) + "."); } System.out.println("Size of graph = " + g.size()); Here is the output: Added vertex a. Added edge from a to b with a weight of 9. Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at structure5.GraphListDirected.addEdge(GraphListDirected.java:93) at Driver.main(Driver.java:28) I was under the impression that line = buffer.split("\\s+"); would return a 2 dimensional array of Strings to the variable line. It seemed to work the first time but not the second. Any thoughts? I would also like some feedback on my implementation of this problem. Is there a better way? Anything to help out a novice! :)

  Read the article

• Method returns an IDisposable - Should I dispose of the result, even if it's not assigned to anythin

  - by mjd79

  This seems like a fairly straightforward question, but I couldn't find this particular use-case after some searching around. Suppose I have a simple method that, say, determines if a file is opened by some process. I can do this (not 100% correctly, but fairly well) with this: public bool IsOpen(string fileName) { try { File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None); } catch { // if an exception is thrown, the file must be opened by some other process return true; } } (obviously this isn't the best or even correct way to determine this - File.Open throws a number of different exceptions, all with different meanings, but it works for this example) Now the File.Open call returns a FileStream, and FileStream implements IDisposable. Normally we'd want to wrap the usage of any FileStream instantiations in a using block to make sure they're disposed of properly. But what happens in the case where we don't actually assign the return value to anything? Is it still necessary to dispose of the FileStream, like so: try { using (File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); { /* nop */ } } catch { return true; } Should I create a FileStream instance and dispose of that? try { using (FileStream fs = File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); } ... Or are these totally unnecessary? Can we simply call File.Open and not assign it to anything (first code example), and let the GC dispose of it right away?

  Read the article

• How to have the controller change its behavior depending on the view?

  - by Ian Boyd

  If from one view a user enters some invalid data, e.g.:     E-mail: [email protected]     then i want the controller to: not place the data into the model color the text box reddish not allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box reddish allow the user to save But it's possible that if the user enters the same invalid data in a different view i want the controller to: place the data into the model color the text box bluish allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: place the data into the model leave the text box uncolored allow the user to save And it's possible that another view will: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model color the text-box reddish allow the user to have And it's possible for another view to: auto-correct the data, placing it into the model update the view with the new data color the text-box bluish allow the user to save [ad infinitum] Without using n-controllers for n-views, how do i do this?

  Read the article

• Can I use an abstract class instead of a private __construct() when creating a singleton in PHP?

  - by Pheter

  When creating a Singleton in PHP, I ensure that it cannot be instantiated by doing the following: class Singleton { private function __construct() {} private function __clone() {} public static function getInstance() {} } However, I realised that defining a class as 'abstract' means that it cannot be instantiated. So is there anything wrong with doing the following instead: abstract class Singleton { public static function getInstance() {} } The second scenario allows me to write fewer lines of code which would be nice. (Not that it actually makes much of a difference.)

  Read the article

• effective counter for unique number of visits in PHP & MySQL

  - by Adnan

  Hello, I am creating a counter for unique number of visits on a post, so what I have until now is a table for storing data like this; cvp_post_id | cvp_ip | cvp_user_id In cases a registered user visits a post, for the first time a record is inserted with cpv_post_id and cvp_user_id, so for his next visit I query the table and if the record is available I do not count him as a new visitor. In cases of an anonymous user the same happens but now the cvp_ip and cpv_post_id are used. My concerns is that I do a query every time anyone visits a post for checking if there has been a visit, what would be a more effective way for doing this?

  Read the article

• best-practice on C header files with #ifndef #define #endif

  - by guest

  what is concerned best practice regarding the following "pattern"? #ifndef BLAFOO_H #define BLAFOO_H /* ... * ... */ #endif /* BLAFOO_H */ how should i name the header in the #define directive? i've seen all from said BLAFOO_H to __BLAFOO_H to _BLAFOO_H_ etc..

  Read the article

• Formating a date field in the Model (Codeigniter)

  - by Landitus

  Hi, I', trying to re-format a date from a table in Codeigniter. The Controller is for a blog. I was succesfull when the date conversion happens in the View. I was hoping to convert the date in the Model to have things in order. This is the Model: class Novedades_model extends Model { function getAll() { $this->db->order_by('date','desc'); $query = $this->db->get('novedades'); if($query->num_rows() > 0) { foreach ($query->result() as $row) { $data[] = $row; } } return $data; } } This is part of the controller $this->load->model('novedades_model'); $data['records'] = $this->novedades_model->getAll(); Here's the date conversion as it happens in the View. This is inside the posts loop: <?php foreach($records as $row) : ?> <?php $fdate = "%d <abbr>%M</abbr> %Y"; $dateConv = mdate($fdate, mysql_to_unix($row->date)); ?> <div class="article section"> <span class="date"><?php echo $dateConv ;?></span> ... Keeps going ... How can I convert the date in the Model? Can I access the date key and refactor it?

  Read the article

• What do you do in your source control repository when you start a rewrite of a program?

  - by Max Schmeling

  I wrote an application a while back and have been maintaining it for a while now, but it's gotten to the point where there's several major new features to be added, a ton of changes that need made, and I know quite a few things I could do better, so I'm starting a rewrite of the entire program (using bits and pieces from original). My question is, what do you do with SVN at this point? Should I put the new version somewhere else, or should I delete the files I no longer need, add the new files, and just treat it like normal development in SVN? How have you handled this in the past?

  Read the article

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