Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and 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 146/348 | < Previous Page | 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153  | Next Page >

  • How should the Version field be used in Trac?

    - by Eric
    I use Trac to track bugs, and future changes in my software projects. Tickets in Trac have a "Version" field and I'm trying to figure out the best way to use this field. Say I find a series of bugs in version 1.0 of my software. I create tickets in track for each and assign them to version 1.0. Now say I fix some of the bugs, and add some of the new features and release version 1.1. But some of the old 1.0 bugs are still in 1.1. Should I change their corresponding tickets to version 1.1 because they also now exist in 1.1? Or should I leave them set to version 1.0 as a way of tracking what version the bug was found in, and just assume that any open tickets in older versions still exist in newer versions?

    Read the article

  • File descriptor limits and default stack sizes

    - by Charles
    Where I work we build and distribute a library and a couple complex programs built on that library. All code is written in C and is available on most 'standard' systems like Windows, Linux, Aix, Solaris, Darwin. I started in the QA department and while running tests recently I have been reminded several times that I need to remember to set the file descriptor limits and default stack sizes higher or bad things will happen. This is particularly the case with Solaris and now Darwin. Now this is very strange to me because I am a believer in 0 required environment fiddling to make a product work. So I am wondering if there are times where this sort of requirement is a necessary evil, or if we are doing something wrong. Edit: Great comments that describe the problem and a little background. However I do not believe I worded the question well enough. Currently, we require customers, and hence, us the testers, to set these limits before running our code. We do not do this programatically. And this is not a situation where they MIGHT run out, under normal load our programs WILL run out and seg fault. So rewording the question, is requiring the customer to change these ulimit values to run our software to be expected on some platforms, ie, Solaris, Aix, or are we as a company making it to difficult for these users to get going? Bounty: I added a bounty to hopefully get a little more information on what other companies are doing to manage these limits. Can you set these pragmatically? Should we? Should our programs even be hitting these limits or could this be a sign that things might be a bit messy under the covers? That is really what I want to know, as a perfectionist a seemingly dirty program really bugs me.

    Read the article

  • Including partial views when applying the Mode-View-ViewModel design pattern

    - by Filip Ekberg
    Consider that I have an application that just handles Messages and Users I want my Window to have a common Menu and an area where the current View is displayed. I can only work with either Messages or Users so I cannot work simultaniously with both Views. Therefore I have the following Controls MessageView.xaml UserView.xaml Just to make it a bit easier, both the Message Model and the User Model looks like this: Name Description Now, I have the following three ViewModels: MainWindowViewModel UsersViewModel MessagesViewModel The UsersViewModel and the MessagesViewModel both just fetch an ObserverableCollection<T> of its regarding Model which is bound in the corresponding View like this: <DataGrid ItemSource="{Binding ModelCollection}" /> The MainWindowViewModel hooks up two different Commands that have implemented ICommand that looks something like the following: public class ShowMessagesCommand : ICommand { private ViewModelBase ViewModel { get; set; } public ShowMessagesCommand (ViewModelBase viewModel) { ViewModel = viewModel; } public void Execute(object parameter) { var viewModel = new ProductsViewModel(); ViewModel.PartialViewModel = new MessageView { DataContext = viewModel }; } public bool CanExecute(object parameter) { return true; } public event EventHandler CanExecuteChanged; } And there is another one a like it that will show Users. Now this introduced ViewModelBase which only holds the following: public UIElement PartialViewModel { get { return (UIElement)GetValue(PartialViewModelProperty); } set { SetValue(PartialViewModelProperty, value); } } public static readonly DependencyProperty PartialViewModelProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("PartialViewModel", typeof(UIElement), typeof(ViewModelBase), new UIPropertyMetadata(null)); This dependency property is used in the MainWindow.xaml to display the User Control dynamicly like this: <UserControl Content="{Binding PartialViewModel}" /> There are also two buttons on this Window that fires the Commands: ShowMessagesCommand ShowUsersCommand And when these are fired, the UserControl changes because PartialViewModel is a dependency property. I want to know if this is bad practice? Should I not inject the User Control like this? Is there another "better" alternative that corresponds better with the design pattern? Or is this a nice way of including partial views?

    Read the article

  • When to use CreateChildControls() vs. embedding in the ASPX

    - by Kelly French
    I'm developing a webpart for SharePoint 2007 and have seen several posts that advise to do all the creation of controls in the code-behind. I'm transitioning from Java J2EE development so I don't have the platform history of .Net/ASP/etc. In other places it shows how you can do the same thing by embedding the control definition into the asp page with tags My question is this: What is the rule governing where to implement controls? Has this rule changed recently, ASP vs ASP.Net or ASP.Net MVC maybe? Is this advice limited to SharePoint development?

    Read the article

  • .NET without use of DLL's

    - by Kieran
    Hi SO community I have been issued a problem with security. A bank will not allow use of DLL's in the project. What sort of structure would be needed to allow DataAccess and or the use of external services (like an email client mailchimp, icontct). has anyone else encountered this sort of problem before? If they have how should the project be structured (.net 3.5+). Thanks, KJ

    Read the article

  • What XSS/CSRF attacks (if any) to be aware of when allowing video embeds?

    - by fireeyedboy
    I've been assigned a project for a website where users will be allowed to upload video's (using a YouTube API) but more importantly (for me) they will also be allowed to submit video embed codes (from numerous video sites, YouTube, Vimeo, etc. etc.). Having no experience with allowing users to embed video: How can I best protect against cross site scripting and/or cross site request forgery attacks specifically for video embedding? What are some of the common pitfalls to watch for? At a minumum I would think to strip all tags except <object> and <embed>. But I have a feeling this will not be enough, will it? If it is of importance, the environment will be: PHP/Zend Framework MySQL Bonuspoints: Is there a common minimum golden rule/code template for video embed codes that are valid across all video sites that I could use to filter the input?

    Read the article

  • What turns away users/prospective users?

    - by Zach Johnson
    In your experience, what kinds of things have turned away users and prospective users from using your programs? Also, what kinds of things turn you away from using someone else's programs? For example, one thing that really bugs me is when someone provides free software, but requires you to enter your name and email address before you download it. Why do they need my name and email address? I just want to use the program! I understand that the developer(s) may want to get a feel for how many users they have, etc, but the extra work I have to do really makes me think twice about downloading their software, even if it does really great things.

    Read the article

  • Proper way of naming your Java Google App Engine Project

    - by Saif Bechan
    I am starting out with Google's App Engine in Java. I have seen the tutorial video but I do not understand the naming of the project package. It is going to be a guestbook, that's why the name is guestbook, I understand that part. But after that I see package name. 1)Is that something you import into the project, or is is something you create. I have seen this a lot in projects, something like com.xxx.xxx. 2)How do you name this type of thing or is this an import. I have looked at another tutorial there they take the naming to a whole new level. The name of both the project and the package is de.vogella.gae.java.todo. 3)What does this mean in java terms. 4)Maybe one of you can help me with this specific project I want to start. I want to create a Google App project that for now only serves static files. I will leave the project empty and just put all my static files in the war directory of the project. I want the domain name to be mydomainstatic

    Read the article

  • c++ Design pattern for CoW, inherited classes, and variable shared data?

    - by krunk
    I've designed a copy-on-write base class. The class holds the default set of data needed by all children in a shared data model/CoW model. The derived classes also have data that only pertains to them, but should be CoW between other instances of that derived class. I'm looking for a clean way to implement this. If I had a base class FooInterface with shared data FooDataPrivate and a derived object FooDerived. I could create a FooDerivedDataPrivate. The underlying data structure would not effect the exposed getters/setters API, so it's not about how a user interfaces with the objects. I'm just wondering if this is a typical MO for such cases or if there's a better/cleaner way? What peeks my interest, is I see the potential of inheritance between the the private data classes. E.g. FooDerivedDataPrivate : public FooDataPrivate, but I'm not seeing a way to take advantage of that polymorphism in my derived classes. class FooDataPrivate { public: Ref ref; // atomic reference counting object int a; int b; int c; }; class FooInterface { public: // constructors and such // .... // methods are implemented to be copy on write. void setA(int val); void setB(int val); void setC(int val); // copy constructors, destructors, etc. all CoW friendly private: FooDataPrivate *data; }; class FooDerived : public FooInterface { public: FooDerived() : FooInterface() {} private: // need more shared data for FooDerived // this is the ???, how is this best done cleanly? };

    Read the article

  • How do you deal with naming conventions for rails partials?

    - by DJTripleThreat
    For example, I might have an partial something like: <div> <%= f.label :some_field %><br/> <%= f.text_field :some_field %> </div> which works for edit AND new actions. I also will have one like: <div> <%=h some_field %> </div> for the show action. So you would think that all your partials go under one directory like shared or something. The problem that I see with this is that both of these would cause a conflict since they are essentially the same partial but for different actions so what I do is: <!-- for edit and new actions --> <%= render "shared_edit/some_partial" ... %> <!-- for show action --> <%= render "shared_show/some_partial" ... %> How do you handle this? Is a good idea or even possible to maybe combine all of these actions into one partial and render different parts by determining what the current action is?

    Read the article

  • WCF Best Practice for "Overloaded" methods

    - by Nate Bross
    What is the best practice for emulating overloaded methods over WCF? Typically I might write an interface like this interface IInterface { MyType ReadMyType(int id); IEnumerable<MyType> ReadMyType(String name); IEnumerable<MyType> ReadMyType(String name, int maxResults); } What would this interface look like after you converted it to WCF?

    Read the article

  • Efficient storage/retrieval method for replayable comet style applications (Google Wave, Etherpad)

    - by Gareth Simpson
    I am considering a web application that would have the same kind of multi user, automatic saving, infinite undo / replay capabilities that you see in Google Wave and Etherpad (albeit on a drastically smaller scale and userbase). Before I go away and reinvent the wheel, is this something that has already been addressed as either a piece of technology or library, or even just a design pattern. I know this isn't necessarily the best Stack Overflow question as there is probably not a "right" answer, but my Google-fu has failed me and I'd just like a reading list! Ordinarily I would be developing under python/django but this is not a firm requirement just a preference :)

    Read the article

  • c# object initializer complexity. best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    I was too excited when object initializer appeared in C#. MyClass a = new MyClass(); a.Field1 = Value1; a.Field2 = Value2; can be rewritten shorter: MyClass a = new MyClass { Field1 = Value1, Field2 = Value2 } Object initializer code is more obvious but when properties number come to dozen and some of the assignment deals with nullable values it's hard to debug where the "null reference error" is. Studio shows the whole object initializer as error point. Nowadays I use object initializer for straightforward assignment only for error-free properties. How do you use object initializer for complex assignment or it's a bad practice to use dozen of assigments at all? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • A good approach to db planing for reporting service

    - by Itay Moav
    The scenario: Big system (~200 tables). 60,000 users. Complex reports that will require me to do multiple queries for each report and even those will be complex queries with inner queries all over the place + some processing in PHP. I have seen an approach, which I am not sure about: Having one centralized, de-normalized, table that registers any activity in the system which is reportable. This table will hold mostly foreign keys, so she should be fairly compact and fast. So, for example (My system is a virtual learning management system), A user enrolls to course, the table stores the user id, date, course id, organization id, activity type (enrollment). Of course I also store this data in a normalized DB, which the actual application uses. Pros I see: easy, maintainable queries and code to process data and fast retrieval. Cons: there is a danger of the de-normalized table to be out of sync with the real DB. Is this approach worth considering, or (preferably from experience) is total $#%#%t?

    Read the article

  • creational pattern for instances depending on multiple subclass instances

    - by markusw
    I have a problem, for that I was not able to identify a suitable design pattern. I want to create instances depending on a given type that has been passed to a factory method. What I am doing until now is the following: T create(SuperType x) { if (x instanceof SubType1) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if (x instanceof SubType2) { // do some stuff and return a new SubType extends T } else if ... } else { throw new UnSupportedOperationException("nothing defined for " + x); } } It seems not to be best pratice for me. Has anybody an idea how to solve this in a better way?

    Read the article

  • Modular enterprise architecture using MVC and Orchard CMS

    - by MrJD
    I'm making a large scale MVC application using Orchard. And I'm going to be separating my logic into modules. I'm also trying to heavily decouple the application for maximum extensibility and testability. I have a rudimentary understanding of IoC, Repository Pattern, Unit of Work pattern and Service Layer pattern. I've made myself a diagram. I'm wondering if it is correct and if there is anything I have missed regarding an extensible application. Note that each module is a separate project.

    Read the article

  • Multiple Actions (Forms) on one Page - How not to lose master data, after editing detail data?

    - by nWorx
    Hello all, I've got a form where users can edit members of a group. So they have the possibilty to add members or remove existing members. So the Url goes like ".../Group/Edit/4" Where 4 is the id of the group. the view looks like this <% using (Html.BeginForm("AddUser", "Group")) %> <%{%> <label for="newUser">User</label> <%=Html.TextBox("username")%> <input type="submit" value="Add"/> </div> <%}%> <% using (Html.BeginForm("RemoveUser", "Group")) %> <%{%> <div class="inputItem"> <label for="groupMember">Bestehende Mitglieder</label> <%= Html.ListBox("groupMember", from g in Model.GetMembers() select new SelectListItem(){Text = g}) %> <input type="submit" value="Remove" /> </div> <%}%> The problem is that after adding or removing one user i lose the id of the group. What is the best solution for solving this kind of problem? Should I use hidden fields to save the group id? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in regards to building composite dtos off of an aggregate root with domain

    - by Chance
    I'm trying to figure out the best approach/practice for assembling a composite data transfer object off of an aggregate root and would love to hear people's thoughts on this. For example, lets say I have a root that has a few domain objects as children. I want to assemble a specific view dto, based on some business logic, that either has attributes or full dto's of it's objects. What I'm struggling with is trying to figure out where that assembly should happen. I can see it going on the domain object of the aggregate root as there is some business logic associated with it. The benefits of this approach from what I've deduced thus far is that it should reduce the inevitable business logic from bleeding outisde of the domain object. It also allows for private methods that take care of tasks that could become more complex from an external builder. The downsides being that the domain object becomes much more entrenched in the application's workflow and represents much more than just the domain object. It also could become very large in the scenario where you need multiple composite Dtos. Alternatively, I could also see it belonging to some form of transfer object assembler where there is a builder for each domain object. The domain objects would still be responsible for GetDto() and UpdateFromDto(dto). Outside of that, the builder would handle the construction and deconstruction of composite dtos. The downside is kind of mentioned above, where I fear this will easily lead to developers unfamiliar with DDD bleeding a ton of business logic into the assembler which is what I want to desperately avoid. Any thoughts would be greatly apperciated.

    Read the article

  • How do you make life easier for yourself when developing a really large database

    - by Hannes de Jager
    I am busy developing 2 web based systems with MySql databases and the amount of tables/views/stored routines is really becoming a lot and it is more and more challenging to handle the complexity. Now in programming languages we have namespacing e.g. Java packages, C++ namespaces to partition the software, grouping it together to make things more understandable. Databases on the other hand have more of a flat structure (MySql at least) e.g. tables and stored procedures are on the same level. So one have to be more creative, creating naming conventions, perhaps use more than one database or using tools to visualize things. What methods do you use to ease the pain? To be effective while developing your databases? To not get lost in a sea of tables and fields and stored procs? Feel free to mention tools you use also, but try to restrict it to open source and preferably Linux solutions if thats OK. b.t.w How many tables would a database have to be considered large in terms of design?

    Read the article

  • Conditional column values in NSTableView?

    - by velocityb0y
    I have an NSTableView that binds via an NSArrayController to an NSMutableArray. What's in the array are derived classes; the first few columns of the table are bound to properties that exist on the base class. That all works fine. Where I'm running into problem is a column that should only be populated if the row maps to one specific subclass. The property that column is meant to display only exists in that subclass, since it makes no sense in terms of the base class. The user will know, from the first two columns, why the third column's cell is populated/editable or not. The binding on the third column's value is on arrangedObjects, with a model path of something like "foo.name" where foo is the property on the subclass. However, this doesn't work, as the other subclasses in the hierarchy are not key-value compliant for foo. It seems like my only choice is to have foo be a property on the base class so everybody responds to it, but this clutters up the interfaces of the model objects. Has anyone come up with a clean design for this situation? It can't be uncommon (I'm a relative newcomer to Cocoa and I'm just learning the ins and outs of bindings.)

    Read the article

  • Pattern for null settings

    - by user21243
    Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and ideas about this one. in my application i have controls that are binded to objects properties. but.. the controls always looks like that: a check box, label that explain the settings and then the edited control (for ex: text box) when unchecking the checkbox i disable the text box (using binding) when the checkbox is unchecked i want the property to contain null, and when it is checked i would like the property to contain the text box's text. Of course text box can be NumericUpDown, ComboBox, DatePicker etc.. Do you have any smart way of doing it using binding or do i have to do everything on code; I really would like to a build a control that supports that and re-use it all over Ideas? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Which design pattern is most appropriate?

    - by Anon
    Hello, I want to create a class that can use one of four algorithms (and the algorithm to use is only known at run-time). I was thinking that the Strategy design pattern sounds appropriate, but my problem is that each algorithm requires slightly different parameters. Would it be a bad design to use strategy, but pass in the relevant parameters into the constructor?. Here is an example (for simplicity, let's say there are only two possible algorithms) ... class Foo { private: // At run-time the correct algorithm is used, e.g. a = new Algorithm1(1); AlgorithmInterface* a; }; class AlgorithmInterface { public: virtual void DoSomething = 0; }; class Algorithm1 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm1( int i ) : value(i) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Does something with int value }; int value; }; class Algorithm2 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm2( bool b ) : value(b) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Do something with bool value }; bool value; };

    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 >