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 141/548 | < Previous Page | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >

  • Interface with inner implementation - good or bad

    - by dermoritz
    I am working on a project with many someInterface - someInterfaceImpl-pairs. Some days ago I got the idea (probably inspired by reading some objective c code) to include the default implementations as an inner class. Now some colleagues (all with much more java experience than me) saw this idea - feedback was between shocked and surprised ("this is working?"). I googled around a bit but didn't find much evidence of usefulness of this "pattern" (personal i like it): pdf-paper and a faq about code style What do you think - especially in those cases where an "default" implementation is tightly coupled to an interface. Update i just found this: Java Interface-Implementation Pair (see accepted answer)

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Request/Response pattern in SOA implementation

    - by UserControl
    In some enterprise-like project (.NET, WCF) i saw that all service contracts accept a single Request parameter and always return Response: [DataContract] public class CustomerRequest : RequestBase { [DataMember] public long Id { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class CustomerResponse : ResponseBase { [DataMember] public CustomerInfo Customer { get; set; } } where RequestBase/ResponseBase contain common stuff like ErrorCode, Context, etc. Bodies of both service methods and proxies are wrapped in try/catch, so the only way to check for errors is looking at ResponseBase.ErrorCode (which is enumeration). I want to know how this technique is called and why it's better compared to passing what's needed as method parameters and using standard WCF context passing/faults mechanisms?

    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

  • How to build array of 'bad' values

    - by JM4
    I am processing a form and in turn, receiving a response code based on the information submitted. I have a list of approximately 40 response codes (and their meaning) in my hands and am trying to build an 'if' statement that checks against a predefined array and returns a specific value. Just not sure how to do this First pass conceptually: $bads = array (1,2,3,4,5,6) if ($output['responsecode'] == (any value in $bads) { echo "you suck"; }

    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

  • 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

  • Rails: Pass association object to the View

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Model Item belongs_to User. In my controller I have code like this: @items = Item.find(:all) I need to have a corresponding User models for each item in my View templates. it works in controller(but not in View template): @items.each { |item| item.user } But manual looping just to build associations for View template kinda smells. How can I do this not in a creepy way?

    Read the article

  • iPhone Simulating App Update at home before going out in the big bad world

    - by Aran Mulholland
    this is a follow on from this question and the link given it seems that when an app is updated all of the files in the documents directory are copied into the updated apps documents directory and also anything in Library/Preferences. Whats the best way to simulate this for testing purposes? Just copy the files in ApplicationSupport/iPhone Simulator etc? or has anyone developped any funky techniques for testing this.

    Read the article

  • globally get any field value in user table of logged in user

    - by Jugga
    Im making a gaming community and i wanna be able to grab any info of the user on any page without so instead of having much of queries on all pages i made this function. Is it better to do this? Will this slow down the site? /** * ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??????? authed ?????????????. */ function UserData($f) { global $_SESSION; return mysql_result(mysql_query("SELECT `$f` FROM `users` WHERE `id` = ".intval($_SESSION['id'])), 0, $f); }

    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

  • Best practice: How to persist simple data without a database in django?

    - by Infinity
    I'm building a website that doesn't require a database because a REST API "is the database". (Except you don't want to be putting site-specific things in there, since the API is used by mostly mobile clients) However there's a few things that normally would be put in a database, for example the "jobs" page. You have master list view, and the detail views for each job, and it should be easy to add new job entries. (not necessarily via a CMS, but that would be awesome) e.g. example.com/careers/ and example.com/careers/77/ I could just hardcode this stuff in templates, but that's no DRY- you have to update the master template and the detail template every time. What do you guys think? Maybe a YAML file? Or any better ideas? Thx

    Read the article

  • Is this multi line if statement too complex?

    - by AndHeCodedIt
    I am validating input on a form and attempting to prompt the user of improper input(s) based on the combination of controls used. For example, I have 2 combo boxes and 3 text boxes. The 2 combo boxes must always have a value other than the first (default) value, but one of three, or two of three, or all text boxes can be filled to make the form valid. In one such scenario I have a 6 line if statement to try to make the test easily readable: if ((!String.Equals(ComboBoxA.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_A_CHOICE.ToString()) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxA.Text) && !String.Equals(ComboBoxB.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_B_CHOICE.ToString())) || (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxB.Text) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxC.Text))) { //Do Some Validation } I have 2 questions: Should this type of if statement be avoided at all cost? Would it be better to enclose this test in another method? (This would be a good choice as this validation will happen in more than one scenario) Thanks for your input(s)!

    Read the article

  • jquery: How to deal with 'this' in ajax callbacks

    - by Svish
    I currently have code similar to this for a form: $('#some-form') .submit(function() { // Make sure we are not already busy if($(this).data('busy')) return false; $(this).data('busy', true); // Do post $.post("some/url", $(this).serialize(), function(data) { if(data.success) // Success is a boolean I set in the result on the server { // Deal with data } else { // Display error } $('#some-form') .removeData('busy'); }); return false; }); My issue is that I would like to somehow remove the need for knowing the form id in the post callback. In the end where I remove the busy data from the form, I'd like to somehow not have that hard coded. Is there any way I can do this? Is there a way I can hand whatever is in this to the post callback function? Since I know the id right now, I can get around it by doing what I have done, but I'd like to know how to not be dependant on knowing the id, since often I don't have an id. (For example if I have a link in each row in a table and all the rows have the same click handler.

    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

  • Class.Class vs Namespace.Class for top level general use class libraries?

    - by Joan Venge
    Which one is more acceptable (best-practice)?: namespace NP public static class IO public static class Xml ... // extension methods using NP; IO.GetAvailableResources (); vs public static class NP public static class IO public static class Xml ... // extension methods NP.IO.GetAvailableResources (); Also for #2, the code size is managed by having partial classes so each nested class can be in a separate file, same for extension methods (except that there is no nested class for them) I prefer #2, for a couple of reasons like being able to use type names that are already commonly used, like IO, that I don't want to replace or collide. Which one do you prefer? Any pros and cons for each? What's the best practice for this case? EDIT: Also would there be a performance difference between the two?

    Read the article

  • Using a message class static method taking in an action to wrap Try/Catch

    - by Chris Marisic
    I have a Result object that lets me pass around a List of event messages and I can check whether an action was successful or not. I've realized I've written this code in alot of places Result result; try { //Do Something ... //New result is automatically a success for not having any errors in it result = new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { //Extension method that returns a Result from the exception result = exception.ToResult(); } if(result.Success) .... What I'm considering is replacing this usage with public static Result CatchException(Action action) { try { action(); return new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { return exception.ToResult(); } } And then use it like var result = Result.CatchException(() => _model.Save(something)); Does anyone feel there's anything wrong with this or that I'm trading reusability for obscurity?

    Read the article

  • Best practice to detect iPhone app only access for web services?

    - by Gaius Parx
    I am developing an iPhone app together with web services. The iPhone app will use GET or POST to retrieve data from the web services such as http://www.myserver.com/api/top10songs.json to get data for top ten songs for example. There is no user account and password for the iPhone app. What is the best practice to ensure that only my iPhone app have access to the web API http://www.myserver.com/api/top10songs.json? iPhone SDK's UIDevice uniqueueIdentifier is not sufficient as anyone can fake the device id as parameter making the API call using wget, curl or web browsers. The web services API will not be published. The data of the web services is not secret and private, I just want to prevent abuse as there are also API to write some data to the server such as usage log.

    Read the article

  • I get an "EXC_BAD_ACCESS" when I try to read a NSString...

    - by micropsari
    Hello ! This is a (very) simplified version of my iPhone code : @interface x { NSString * name1; NSString * name2; } -init { name1 = @""; name2 = @""; } -(void) a { name1 = @"uhuh"; name2 = [foo bar]; // return a (NSString *) } -(void) b { NSLog(@"%@", name1); // it works NSLog(@"%@", name2); // there I get an EXC_BAD_ACCESS... } Why I have this problem ? And how can I solve it ? Thanks !

    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 | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >