Search Results

Search found 31207 results on 1249 pages for 'atg best practice in industries'.

Page 136/1249 | < Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >

  • Turning Floats into Their Closest (UTF-8 Character) Fraction.

    - by Mark Tomlin
    I want to take any real number, and return the closest number, with the closest fraction as available in the UTF-8 character set, appropriate. 0/4 = 0.00 = # < .125 1/4 = 0.25 = ¼ # > .125 & < .375 2/4 = 0.50 = ½ # > .375 & < .625 3/4 = 0.75 = ¾ # > .625 & < .875 4/4 = 1.00 = # > .875 I made this function to do that task: function displayFraction($realNumber) { if (!is_float($realNumber)) { return $realNumber; } list($number, $decimal) = explode('.', $realNumber); $decimal = '.' . $decimal; switch($decimal) { case $decimal < 0.125: return $number; case $decimal > 0.125 && $decimal < 0.375: return $number . '¼'; # 188 ¼ &#188; case $decimal > 0.375 && $decimal < 0.625: return $number . '½'; # 189 ½ &#189; case $decimal > 0.625 && $decimal < 0.875: return $number . '¾'; # 190 ¾ &#190; case $decimal < 0.875: return ++$number; } } What are the better / diffrent way to do this? echo displayFraction(3.1) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3 echo displayFraction(3.141593) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.267432) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3¼ echo displayFraction(3.38) . PHP_EOL; # Outputs: 3½ Expand my mind!

    Read the article

  • What is the correct way to unit test areas around exceptions

    - by Codek
    Hi, Looking at our code coverage of our unit tests we're quite high. But the last few % is tricky because a lot of them are catching things like database exceptions - which in normal circumstances just dont happen. For example the code prevents fields being too long etc, so the only possible database exceptions are if the DB is broken/down, or if the schema is changed under our feet. So is the only way to Mock the objects such that the exception can be thrown? That seems a little bit pointless. Perhaps it's better to just accept not getting 100% code coverage? Thanks, Dan

    Read the article

  • How 'terse' is too terse? -- Practical guidelines for expressing as much intent in as few characters

    - by Christopher Altman
    First, I love writing as little code as possible. I think, and please correct me, one of the golden rules of programming is to express your code in as few of character as possible while maintaining human readability. But I can get a little carried away. I can pack three or four lines into one statement, something like $startDate = $dateTime > time() ? mktime(0,0,0,date('m',time()-86400),date('d',time()*2),2011) : time(); (Note: this is a notional example) I can comprehend the above code when reading it. I prefer 'mushing' it all together because having less lines per page is a good thing to me. So my question: When writing code and thinking about how compact or terse you can express yourself, what are some guidelines you use? Do you write multiple lines because you think it helps other people? Do you write as little as possible, but use comments? Or do you always look for the way to write as little code as possible and enjoy the rewards of compact statements? (Just one slightly off topic comment: I love the Perl one-liners, but that is not what I am talking about here)

    Read the article

  • Checking for empty arrays: count vs empty

    - by Dan McG
    This question on 'How to tell if a PHP array is empty' had me thinking of this question Is there a reason that count should be used instead of empty when determining if an array is empty or not? My personal thought would be if the 2 are equivalent for the case of empty arrays you should use empty because it gives a boolean answer to a boolean question. From the question linked above, it seems that count($var) == 0 is the popular method. To me, while technically correct, makes no sense. E.g. Q: $var, are you empty? A: 7. Hmmm... Is there a reason I should use count == 0 instead or just a matter of personal taste? As pointed out by others in comments for a now deleted answer, count will have performance impacts for large arrays because it will have to count all elements, whereas empty can stop as soon as it knows it isn't empty. So, if they give the same results in this case, but count is potentially inefficient, why would we ever use count($var) == 0?

    Read the article

  • What is the advantage of the 'src/main/java'' convention?

    - by Chris
    I've noticed that a lot of projects have the following structure: Project-A bin lib src main java RootLevelPackageClass.java I currently use the following convention (as my projects are 100% java): Project-A bin lib src RootLevelPackageClass.java I'm not currently using Maven but am wondering if this is a Maven convention or not or if there is another reason. Can someone explain why the first version is so popular these days and if I should adopt this new convention or not? Chris

    Read the article

  • Where do you keep your code?

    - by skiphoppy
    Your code is of course checked into a repository somewhere, but where do you keep your working copy/copies? C:\Program Files isn't right, as it's for installed packages. My Documents somehow doesn't seem right, either—a My Code folder next to My Music and My Pictures? Dumping in C:\ is messy, but seems to be "working" for other people in my office.

    Read the article

  • index 'enabled' fields good idea?

    - by sibidiba
    Content of a website is stored in a MySQL database. 99% of the content will be enabled, but some (users, posts etc.) will be disabled. Most of the queries end as WHERE (...) AND enabled Is it a good idea to create an index on the field 'enabled'?

    Read the article

  • Returning true or error message in Ruby

    - by seaneshbaugh
    I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form. def test(x) if x == 1 return true else return "Error: x is not equal to one." end end And then to use it we do something like this: result = test(1) if result != true puts result end result = test(2) if result != true puts result end Which just displays the error message for the second call to test. I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this def create @item = Item.new(params[:item]) if [email protected]? result = @item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file]) if result != true flash[:notice] = result redirect_to(new_item_url) and return end #and so on... That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked. It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.

    Read the article

  • Best way to provide software settings?

    - by claws
    I'm using C# .NET. In my software I'm providing settings dialog through which user can set the application settings which I want to save to a file. Requirements (typical): Every class I defined uses some part of these settings. So, these should be global to all classes. These should be loaded while software is started. When ever user changes settings and clicks 'save'/'apply'. Current settings should change. I am wondering what is the best way to do this? Also, what is the best way to save these settings to disk? I mean should I create a Settings class object and serializing it to 'settings.dat' or provide an structured file like XML/JSON

    Read the article

  • What is the most elegant way to validate the presence of ONLY one out of two attributes using Rails?

    - by marcgg
    class Followup < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :post belongs_to :comment end This model needs to only have either a post or a comment, but only one of the two. Here's the rspec for what I'm trying to do: it "should be impossible to have both a comment and a post" do followup = Followup.make followup.comment = Comment.make followup.should be_valid followup.post = Post.make followup.should_not be_valid end I can see a bunch of ways of doing this, but what would be the most elegant way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Use of infix operator hack in production code (Python)

    - by Casebash
    What is your opinion of using the infix operator hack in production code? Issues: The effect this will have on speed. The potential for a clashes with an object with these operators already defined. This seems particularly dangerous with generic code that is intended to handle objects of any type. It is a shame that this isn't built in - it really does improve readability

    Read the article

  • Avoid writing SQL queries altogether in SSIS

    - by Jonn
    Working on a Data Warehouse project, the guy that gave us the tutorial advised that we stick to using SQL queries over defining a lot of data flow transformations, citing points like it'll consume a lot of memory on the ETL box so we'd rather leave the processing to the DB box. Is this really advisable? Where's the balance between relying on GUI tools over executing a bunch of SQL scripts on your Integration package? And honestly, I'd like to avoid writing SQL queries as much as I can.

    Read the article

  • Why Shouldn't I Programmatically Submit Username/Password to Facebook/Twitter/Amazon/etc?

    - by viatropos
    I wish there was a central, fully customizable, open source, universal login system that allowed you to login and manage all of your online accounts (maybe there is?)... I just found RPXNow today after starting to build a Sinatra app to login to Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, OpenID, and EventBrite, and it looks like it might save some time. But I keep wondering, not being an authentication guru, why couldn't I just have a sleek login page saying "Enter username and password, and check your login service", and then in the background either scrape the login page from say EventBrite and programmatically submit the form with Mechanize, or use an API if there was one? It would be so much cleaner and such a better user experience if they didn't have to go through popups and redirects and they could use any previously existing accounts. My question is: What are the reasons why I shouldn't do something like that? I don't know much about the serious details of cookies/sessions/security, so if you could be descriptive or point me to some helpful links that would be awesome. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • PDO update query with conditional?

    - by dmontain
    I have a PDO mysql that updates 3 fields. $update = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2, field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); But I want field3 to be updated only when $update3 = true; (meaning that the update of field3 is controlled by a conditional statement) Is this possible to accomplish with a single query? I could do it with 2 queries where I update field1 and field2 then check the boolean and update field3 if needed in a separate query. //run this query to update only fields 1 and 2 $update_part1 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field1=:field1, field2=:field2 WHERE key=:key"); //if field3 should be update, run a separate query to update it separately if ($update3){ $update_part2 = $mypdo->prepare("UPDATE tablename SET field3=:field3 WHERE key=:key"); } But hopefully there is a way to accomplish this in 1 query?

    Read the article

  • Is it better to use List or Collection?

    - by Vivin Paliath
    I have an object that stores some data in a list. The implementation could change later, and I don't want to expose the internal implementation to the end user. However, the user must have the ability to modify and access this collection of data. Currently I have something like this: public List<SomeDataType> getData() { return this.data; } public void setData(List<SomeDataType> data) { this.data = data; } Does this mean that I have allowed the internal implementation details to leak out? Should I be doing this instead? public Collection<SomeDataType> getData() { return this.data; } public void setData(Collection<SomeDataType> data) { this.data = new ArrayList<SomeDataType>(data); }

    Read the article

  • How often to run getWritableDatabase() and getReadableDatabase()?

    - by jawonlee
    I'm writing a Service, a Content Provider, and one or more apps. The Service writes new data to the Content Provider's SQLite database every 5 minutes or so plus at user input, and is intended to run pretty much forever in the background. The app, when running, will display data pulled from the Content Provider, and will be refreshed whenever the Service puts more data into the Content Provider's database. Given that the Service only inserts into the database once every five minutes, when is the right time to call SQLiteOpenHelper's getWritableDatabase() / getReadableDatabase()? Is it on the onCreate() of the Content Provider, or should I run it every time there is an insert() and close it at the end of insert()? The data being inserted every 5 minutes will contain multiple inserts.

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods - IsNull and IsNotNull, good or bad use?

    - by Jaimal Chohan
    I like readability. So, I came up with an extension mothod a few minutes ago for the (x =! null) type syntax, called IsNotNull. Inversly, I also created a IsNull extension method, thus if(x == null) becomes if(x.IsNull()) and if(x != null) becomes if(x.IsNotNull()) However, I'm worried I might be abusing extension methods. Do you think that this is bad use of Extenion methods?

    Read the article

  • Generic data input form in asp.net mvc application

    - by Diego
    Hello, I have an application that have EF 16 classes that share this information: They all are classes only with a key field and a description. I think it should be a waste if I make a controller with just 1 method just to present a form to fill these classes info, then I was thinking in to make a generic form(with key, description) and dynamically fill the right class through a sort of selection the selected info in any way, any good suggestion or pattern to do that? Where the generic methods should be located.

    Read the article

  • Should I define a single "DataContext" and pass references to it around or define muliple "DataConte

    - by Nate Bross
    I have a Silverlight application that consists of a MainWindow and several classes which update and draw images on the MainWindow. I'm now expanding this to keep track of everything in a database. Without going into specifics, lets say I have a structure like this: MainWindow Drawing-Surface Class1 -- Supports Drawing DataContext + DataServiceCollection<T> w/events Class2 -- Manages "transactions" (add/delete objects from drawing) Class3 Each "Class" is passed a reference to the Drawing Surface so they can interact with it independently. I'm starting to use WCF Data Services in Class1 and its working well; however, the other classes are also going to need access to the WCF Data Services. (Should I define my "DataContext" in MainWindow and pass a reference to each child class?) Class1 will need READ access to the "transactions" data, and Class2 will need READ access to some of the drawing data. So my question is, where does it make the most sense to define my DataContext? Does it make sense to: Define a "global" WCF Data Service "Context" object and pass references to that in all of my subsequent classes? Define an instance of the "Context" for each Class1, Class2, etc Have each method that requires access to data define its own instance of the "Context" and use closures handle the async load/complete events? Would a structure like this make more sense? Is there any danger in keeping an active "DataContext" open for an extended period of time? Typical usecase of this application could range from 1 minute to 40+ minutes. MainWindow Drawing-Surface DataContext Class1 -- Supports Drawing DataServiceCollection<DrawingType> w/events Class2 -- Manages "transactions" (add/delete objects from drawing) DataServiceCollection<TransactionType> w/events Class3 DataServiceCollection<T> w/events

    Read the article

  • Counting down to zero in contrast to counting up to length - 1

    - by Helper Method
    Is it recommended to count in small loops (where possible) down from length - 1 to zero instead of counting up to length - 1? 1.) Counting down for (int i = a.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if (a[i] == key) return i; } 2.) Counting up for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { if (a[i] == key) return i; } The first one is slightly faster that the second one (because comparing to zero is faster) but is a little more error-prone in my opinion. Besides, the first one could maybe not be optimized by future improvements of the JVM. Any ideas on that?

    Read the article

  • Static classes in PHP via abstract keyword?

    - by Boldewyn
    According to the PHP manual, a class like this: abstract class Example {} cannot be instantiated. If I need a class without instance, e.g. for a registry pattern: class Registry {} // and later: echo Registry::$someValue; would it be considered good style to simply declare the class as abstract? If not, what are the advantages of hiding the constructor as protected method compared to an abstract class? Rationale for asking: As far as I see it, it could a bit of feature abuse, since the manual refers to abstract classes more as like blueprints for later classes with instantiation possibility.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143  | Next Page >