Search Results

Search found 30896 results on 1236 pages for 'best buy'.

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 146/1236 | < Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >

  • Will this be garbage collected in JVM?

    - by stjowa
    I am running the following code every two minutes via a Timer: object = new Object(this); Potentially, this is a lot of objects being created and a lot of objects being overwritten. Do the overwritten objects get garbage collected, even with a reference to itself being used in the newly created object? I am using JDK 1.6.0_13. Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Global State and Singletons Dependency injection

    - by Manu
    this is a problem i face lot of times when i am designing a new app i'll use a sample problem to explain this think i am writing simple game.so i want to hold a list of players. i have few options.. 1.use a static field in some class private static ArrayList<Player> players = new ArrayList<Integer>(); public Player getPlayer(int i){ return players.get(i); } but this a global state 2.or i can use a singleton class PlayerList{ private PlayerList instance; private PlayerList(){...} public PlayerList getInstance() { if(instance==null){ ... } return instance; } } but this is bad because it's a singleton 3.Dependency injection class Game { private PlayerList playerList; public Game(PlayerList list) { this.list = list; } public PlayerList getPlayerList() { return playerList; } } this seems good but it's not, if any object outside Game need to look at PlayerList (which is the usual case) i have to use one of the above methods to make the Game class available globally. so I just add another layer to the problem. didn't actually solve anything. what is the optimum solution ? (currently i use Singleton approach)

    Read the article

  • Fastest way to check for value existance.

    - by Itay Moav
    I have a list of values I have to check my input against it for existence. What is the faster way? This is really out of curiosity on how the internals work, not any stuff about premature optimization etc... 1. $x=array('v'=>'','c'=>'','w'=>); .. .. array_key_exists($input,$x); 2. $x=array('v','c','w'); .. .. in_array($input,$x);

    Read the article

  • Best way to support large dropdowns

    - by JustAProgrammer
    Say I have a report that can be restricted by specifying some value in a dropdown. This dropdown list references a table with 30,000 records. I don't think this would be feasible to populate a dropdown with! So, what is the best way to provide the user the ability to select a value given this situation? These values do not really have categories and even if I subdivided (by having some nesting dropdown situation) by the first letter of the value, that may still leave a few thousand entries. What's the best way to deal with this?

    Read the article

  • Assignment in conditional operator

    - by DuoSRX
    I've seen a lot this kind of code recently : if ($foo = $bar->getFoo()) { baz($foo); } Is this considered good or bad practice ? For example, Netbeans IDE give a notice if you use this kind of code : Possible accidental assignment, assignments in conditions should be avoided What do you think ?

    Read the article

  • Am i using too much jquery? When i'm crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately i find myself using jquery and javascript a lot, often to do the same things that i did before using css. For example, i alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using javascript/jquery. Is this acceptable? Or should i keep using css for these kind of things? So the real question is: When i'm using too much jquery? How can i understand when i'm crossing the line? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Implement abstract class as a local class? pros and cons

    - by sinec
    Hi, for some reason I'm thinking on implementing interface within a some function(method) as local class. Consider following: class A{ public: virtual void MethodToOverride() = 0; }; A * GetPtrToAImplementation(){ class B : public A { public: B(){} ~B(){} void MethodToOverride() { //do something } }; return static_cast<A *>(new B()); } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { A * aInst = GetPtrToAImplementation(); aInst->MethodToOverride(); delete aInst; return 0; } the reason why I'm doing this are: I'm lazy to implement class (B) in separate files MethodToOverride just delegates call to other class Class B shouldn't be visible to other users no need to worry about deleting aInst since smart pointers are used in real implementation So my question is if I'm doing this right? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Need help in sorting the programming buzz-words

    - by cwap
    How do you sort out the good buzz from the bad buzz? - I really need your help here :) I see a lot of buzz-words nowadays, both here on SO and in school. For example, we had a teacher who everyone respected, who said "be careful about gold-plating and death-by-interfacing". Now, everyone and their mama cries whenever I'm creating an interface.. Another example would be here on SO where lately "premature optimization is the root of all evil", so everytime someone asks a perfomance question, he'll get that sentence thrown in his face. A few months ago I remember it was all about NHibernate in here, etc., etc... These things comes and goes, but only the good buzz stays. Now, how do you seperate the good from the bad? By reading blogs from respected persons? By trying to come to a conclusion on your own, and then try to convince others that you're right? By simply ignoring it?

    Read the article

  • Flexible array members in C - bad?

    - by Lionel
    I recently read that using flexible array members in C was poor software engineering practice. However, that statement was not backed by any argument. Is this an accepted fact? (Flexible array members are a C feature introduced in C99 whereby one can declare the last element to be an array of unspecified size. For example: ) struct header { size_t len; unsigned char data[]; };

    Read the article

  • Call a non member funcion on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); ~C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Call a non member function on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to initialize a variable to a dummy value?

    - by froadie
    This question is a result of the answers to this question that I just asked. It was claimed that this code is "ugly" because it initializes a variable to a value that will never be read: String tempName = null; try{ tempName = buildFileName(); } catch(Exception e){ ... System.exit(1); } FILE_NAME = tempName; Is this indeed bad practice? Should one avoid initializing variables to dummy values that will never actually be used? (EDIT - And what about initializing a String variable to "" before a loop that will concatenate values to the String...? Or is this in a separate category? e.g. String whatever = ""; for(String str : someCollection){ whatever += str; } )

    Read the article

  • When using out parameters in a function, is it good practice to initialize them in the function?

    - by adambox
    I have a function that uses out parameters to return multiple values to the caller. I would like to initialize them in the function, but I wasn't sure if that's a bad idea since you don't know when you call the function that it's going to change the values right away. The caller might assume that after the function returns, if whatever it was doing didn't work, the values would be whatever they were initialized to in the caller. Is it ok / good for me to initialize in the function? Example: public static void SomeFunction(int ixID, out string sSomething) { sSomething = ""; sSomething = something(ixID); if (sSomething = "") { somethingelse(); sSomething = "bar" } }

    Read the article

  • SQL - when should you use "with (nolock)"

    - by Andy White
    Can someone explain the implications of using "with (nolock)" on queries, when you should/shouldn't use it? For example, if you have a banking application with high transaction rates and a lot of data in certain tables, in what types of queries would nolock be okay? Are there cases when you should always use it/never use it?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to violate the principle that collection properties should be readonly for performance?

    - by uriDium
    I used FxCop to analyze some code I had written. I had exposed a collection via a setter. I understand why this is not good. Changing the backing store when I don't expect it is a very bad idea. Here is my problem though. I retrieve a list of business objects from a Data Access Object. I then need to add that collection to another business class and I was doing it with the setter method. The reason I did this was that it is going to be faster to make an assignment than to insert hundreds of thousands of objects one at a time to the collection again via another addElement method. Is it okay to have a getter for a collection in some scenarios? I though of rather having a constructor which takes a collection? I thought maybe I could pass the object in to the Dao and let the Dao populate it directly? Are there any other better ideas?

    Read the article

  • moving a website built on struts to a CMS

    - by fabiobeta
    Hi. Imagine having developed a classical website with java&struts. Now you customer is learning that redeploying the application to change an image or a text is a significant cost. And it asks to add a function to the site: cms-like handling of the contents (editing, versioning, approved publishing). How would you handle this request? Would you develop it in the webapp? Would you merge the webapp with a CMS? Would tou MOVE the webapp into a cms? Would you run away?

    Read the article

  • When using Sessions is bad thing, and whats wrong with it?

    - by Amr ElGarhy
    I know that in community server which means that you can't use Sessions, and few years ago i remember i was working on a website where we were not allowed to use sessions. In my point of view sessions are a very helpful tool if we managed how to use the right way, but is using session variable in a website is something bad, when its bad and when its not?

    Read the article

  • If you could remove one feature of php ti help newbies what would it be?

    - by Chris
    If you could remove one feature from PHP so as to discourage, prevent or otherwise help stop newer programmers develop bad habits or practices, or, to stop them falling into traps that might hinder their development skills what would it be and why? Now, before the votes to close it's not as open-ended as you might think. I'm not asking purely what is the worst feature or what feature would you really like to remove purely arbitrarily. Yes, there may not be one correct answer but I suspect there will be many similar answers which will provide me with a good idea of things I might be doing wrong, even inadvertently.

    Read the article

  • Should I go back and fix work when you learn something new/better?

    - by SnOrfus
    Considering that we're all constantly learning, we've all got to come across a point where we learn something just awesome that improves our code or parts of it significantly. The question is, when you've learned some new technique, strategy or whatever, do your or should you go back to code that you know works, but could be so much better/maintainable/faster/generally improved and implement this new knowledge? I understand the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but when does that become losing pride in code you've already written and what does it say for refactoring.

    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 | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >