Search Results

Search found 31159 results on 1247 pages for 'best fit'.

Page 141/1247 | < Previous Page | 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148  | Next Page >

  • using ref to view error

    - by Avram
    Hello. I working now on firm that using ref in every function. The reason, is to catch errors. There example : //return true if the read is success //otherwise writing to the error ,the problem bool ReadFile(ref string error) Question: How do you catching errors? Using ref,exceptions or other way?

    Read the article

  • Arguments against Create or Update

    - by Nix
    Recently someone stated that they thought all Creates should be CreateOrUpdates. Instinctively i thought bad, but now I am trying to find out if I have any grounds. Situation interface IService{ void Create(Object a); void Update(Object a); } or interface IService{ void CreateOrUpdate(Object a); } My first thought is if you implemented everything CreateOrUpdate then you have no control if someone accidentally sends you wrong data, or concurrency issues where someone changes a "primary" field right before you call update.... But if you remove those cases, are there any other cons?

    Read the article

  • Validation - Data Integrity

    - by Thomas
    A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream instance timing help

    - by rod
    Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

    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

  • Tool that auto-generate a code for accesing a xml-file

    - by alex
    My application have a configuration xml-file. That file contains more than 50 program settings. At the present time I read and save each program setting separately. I guess It is not effi?iently for such tasks. I need something that can auto-generate a code for load and save my program settings using predefined xml-schema. I found a dataset in Add New Item dialog. Unfortunately, i cannot add new code to dataset1 such as events in set-accessors of properties because of this // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. Maybe, there is a tool that allows a user to generate a wrapper for accesing a xml-file ? Such as DataSet1, but with availability to add events.

    Read the article

  • Reference table values in a war against magic numbers

    - by Alex N.
    This question bugged me for years now and can't seem to find good solution still. I working in PHP and Java but it sounds like this maybe language-agnostic :) Say we have a standard status reference table that holds status ids for some kind of entity. Further let's assume the table will have just 5 values, and will remain like this for a long time, maybe edited occasionally with addition of a new status. When you fetch a row and need to see what status it is you have 2 options(as I see it at least) - put it straight ID values(magic numbers that is) or use a named constant. Latter seem much cleaner, the question though is where those named constants should leave? In a model class? In a class that uses this particular constant? Somewhere else?

    Read the article

  • Right design to validate attributes of a class instance

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    Read the article

  • help me to choose between two designs

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to throw NotImplemented exception in virtual methods?

    - by Axarydax
    I have a base class for some plugin-style stuff, and there are some methods that are absolutely required to be implemented. I currently declare those in the base class as virtual, for example public virtual void Save { throw new NotImplementedException(); } and in the descendand I have a public override void Save() { //do stuff } Is it a good practice to throw a NotImplementedException there? The descendand classes could for example be the modules for handling different file formats. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to provide global functionality in multi-user database app

    - by Mike B
    I have been building a multi-user database application (in C#/WPF 4.0) that manages tasks for all employees of a company. I now need to add some functionality such as sending an email reminder to someone when a critical task is due. How should this be done? Obviously I don’t want every instance of the program to be performing this function (Heh each user would get 10+ emails). Should I add the capability to the application as a "Mode" and then run a copy on the database server in this mode or would it be better to create a new app altogether to perform "Global" type tasks? Is there a better way?

    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

  • Are ASCII diagrams worth my time?

    - by Jesse Stimpson
    Are ASCII diagrams within source code worth the time they take to create? I could create a bitmap diagram much faster, but images are much more difficult to in line in a source file (until VS2010). For the record, I'm not talking about decorative ASCII art. Here's an example of a diagram I recently created for my code that I probably could have constructed in half the time in MS Paint. Scenario A: v (U)_________________(N)_______<--(P) Legend: ' / | J = ... ' / | P = ... ' /d | U = ... ' / | v = ... ' / | d = ... '/ | N = ... (J) | | | |___________________|

    Read the article

  • Where to put a piece of code in Ruby on Rails?

    - by yuval
    I have a post controller that has many comments. The post model has a field called has_comments which is a boolean (so I can quickly select from the database only posts that have comments). To create a new comment for a post, I use the create action of my comments controller. After I create the comment I need to update my post's has_comments field and set it to true. I can update this field from the create action of my comments controller, but that doesn't seem right - I feel that I should really be using the post's update action, but I'm not sure if it's right to call it (via send?) from the create action of the comments controller. Where should the code for updating the post be? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to define a variable in a local block for a case of a switch statement?

    - by Paperflyer
    I have a rather long switch-case statement. Some of the cases are really short and trivial. A few are longer and need some variables that are never used anywhere else, like this: switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: { int specialVariable = 5; // Do something complex with specialVariable } break; } The alternative would be to declare that variable before going into the switch like this: int specialVariable = 5; switch (action) { case kSimpleAction: // Do something simple break; case kComplexAction: // Do something complex with specialVariable break; } This can get rather confusing since it is not clear to which case the variable belongs and it uses some unnecessary memory. However, I have never seen this usage anywhere else. Do you think it is a good idea to declare variables locally in a block for a single case?

    Read the article

  • How to differentiate between exceptions i can show the user, and ones i can't?

    - by Ian Boyd
    i have some business logic that traps some logically invalid situations, e.g. trying to reverse a transaction that was already reversed. In this case the correct action is to inform the user: Transaction already reversed or Cannot reverse a reversing transaction or You do not have permission to reverse transactions or This transaction is on a session that has already been closed or This transaction is too old to be reversed The question is, how do i communicate these exceptional cases back to the calling code, so they can show the user? Do i create a separate exception for each case: catch (ETransactionAlreadyReversedException) MessageBox.Show('Transaction already reversed') catch (EReversingAReversingTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('Cannot reverse a reversing transaction') catch (ENoPermissionToReverseTranasctionException) MessageBox.Show('You do not have permission to reverse transactions') catch (ECannotReverseTransactionOnAlredyClosedSessionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is on a session that has already been closed') catch (ECannotReverseTooOldTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is too old to be reversed') Downside for this is that when there's a new logical case to show the user: Tranasctions created by NSL cannot be reversed i don't simply show the user a message, and instead it leaks out as an unhandled excpetion, when really it should be handled with another MessageBox. The alternative is to create a single exception class: `EReverseTransactionException` With the understanding that any exception of this type is a logical check, that should be handled with a message box: catch (EReverseTransactionException) But it's still understood that any other exceptions, ones that involve, for example, an memory ECC parity error, continue unhandled. In other words, i don't convert all errors that can be thrown by the ReverseTransaction() method into EReverseTransactionException, only ones that are logically invalid cause of the user.

    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

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