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 150/348 | < Previous Page | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >

  • Debugging TestNG configuration failures

    - by Ula Karzelek
    I'm running testng from ant. I'm using my own test listeners. I'm refactoring the code and once a while I got [testng] Total tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Skips: 7 [testng] Configuration Failures: 1, Skips: 2 What will be the best approach to fix configuration failures?

    Read the article

  • What is a good practice to access class attributes in class methods?

    - by Clem
    I always wonder about the best way to access a class attribute from a class method in Java. Could you quickly convince me about which one of the 3 solutions below (or a totally different one :P) is a good practice? public class Test { String a; public String getA(){ return this.a; } public setA(String a){ this.a = a; } // Using Getter public void display(){ // Solution 1 System.out.println(this.a); // Solution 2 System.out.println(getA()); // Solution 3 System.out.println(this.getA()); } // Using Setter public void myMethod(String b, String c){ // Solution 1 this.a = b + c; // Solution 2 setA(b + c); // Solution 3 this.setA(b + c); } }

    Read the article

  • How to properly load HTML data from third party website using MVC+AJAX?

    - by Dmitry
    I'm building ASP.NET MVC2 website that lets users store and analyze data about goods found on various online trade sites. When user is filling a form to create or edit an item, he should have a button "Import data" that automatically fills some fields based on data from third party website. The question is: what should this button do under the hood? I see at least 2 possible solutions. First. Do the import on client side using AJAX+jQuery load method. I tried it in IE8 and received browser warning popup about insecure script actions. Of course, it is completely unacceptable. Second. Add method ImportData(string URL) to ItemController class. It is called via AJAX, does the import + data processing server-side and returns JSON-d result to client. I tried it and received server exception (503) Server unavailable when loading HTML data into XMLDocument. Also I have a feeling that dealing with not well-formed HTML (missing closing tags, etc.) will be a huge pain. Any ideas how to parse such HTML documents?

    Read the article

  • ASP Dot Net : How to repeat HTML parts with minor differences on a page?

    - by tinky05
    It's a really simple problem. I've got HTML code like this : <div> <img src="image1.jpg" alt="test1" /> </div> <div> <img src="image2.jpg" alt="test2" /> </div> <div> <img src="image3.jpg" alt="test3" /> </div> etc... The data is comming from a DB (image name, alt text). In JAVA, I would do something like : save the info in array in the back end. For the presentation I would loop through it with JSTL : <c:foeach items="${data}" var="${item}> <div> <img src="${item.image}" alt="${item.alt}" /> </div> </c:foreach> What's the best practice in ASP.net I just don't want to create a string with HTML code in it in the "code behind", it's ugly IMO.

    Read the article

  • What's the standard behaviour for an out parameter when a TryXxxx method returns false?

    - by Matt Lacey
    Assuming a method with the following signature bool TryXxxx(object something, out int toReturn) What is it acceptable for toReturn to be if TryXxxx returns false? In that it's infered that toReturn should never be used if TryXxxx fails does it matter? If toReturn was a nulable type, then it would make sense to return null. But int isn't nullable and I don't want to have to force it to be. If toReturn is always a certain value if TryXxxx fails we risk having the position where 2 values could be considered to indicate the same thing. I can see this leading to potential possible confusion if the 'default' value was returned as a valid response (when TryXxxx returns true). From an implementation point if view it looks like having toReturn be a[ny] value is easiest, but is there anything more important to consider?

    Read the article

  • "Special case" records for foreign key constraints

    - by keithjgrant
    Let's say I have a mysql table, called foo with a foreign key option_id constrained to the option table. When I create a foo record, the user may or may not have selected an option, and 'no option' is a viable selection. What is the best way to differentiate between 'null' (i.e. the user hasn't made a selection yet) and 'no option' (i.e. the user selected 'no option')? Right now, my plan is to insert a special record into the option table. Let's say that winds up with an id of 227 (this table already has a number of records at this point, so '1' isn't available). I have no need to access this record at a database level, and it would act as nothing more than a placeholder that the foreign key in the foo table can reference. So do I just hard-code '227' in my codebase when I'm creating 'foo' records where the user has selected 'no option'? The hard-coded id seems sloppy, and leaves room for error as the code is maintained down the road, but I'm not really sure of another approach.

    Read the article

  • Advice on a simple Windows Form

    - by Austin Hyde
    I have a VERY simple windows form that the user uses to manage "Stores". Each store has a name and number, and is kept in a corresponding DB table. The form has a listbox of stores, an add button that creates a new store, a delete button, and an edit button. Beside those I have text boxes for the name and number, and save/cancel buttons. When the user chooses a store from the list box, and clicks 'edit', the textboxes become populated and save/cancel become active. When the user clicks 'add', I create a new Store, add it to the listbox, activate the textboxes and save/cancel buttons, then commit it to the database when the user clicks 'save', or discards it when the user clicks 'cancel'. Right now, my event system looks like this (in psuedo-code. It's just shorter that way.) add->click: store = new Store() listbox.add(store) populateAndEdit(store) delete->click: store = listbox.selectedItem db.deleteOnSubmit(store) listbox.remove(store) db.submit() edit->click: populateAndEdit(listbox.selectedItem) save->click: parseAndSave(listbox.selectedItem) db.submit() disableTexts() cancel->click: disableTexts() The problem is in how I determine if we are inserting a new Store, or updating an existing one. The obvious solution to me would be to make it a "modal" process - that is, when I click edit, I go into edit mode, and the save button does things differently than if I were in add mode. I know I could make this more MVC-like, but I don't really think this simple form merits the added complexity. I'm not very experienced with winforms, so I'm not sure if I even have the right idea for how to tackle this. Is there a better way to do this? I would like to keep it simple, but usable.

    Read the article

  • What is the best method to convert to an Integer in JavaScript?

    - by Mathew Byrne
    There are several different methods for converting floating point numbers to Integers in JavaScript. My question is what method gives the best performance, is most compatible, or is considered the best practice? Here are a few methods that I know of: var a = 2.5; window.parseInt(a); // 2 Math.floor(a); // 2 a | 0; // 2 I'm sure there are others out there. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Passing objects by reference or not in C#

    - by Piku
    Suppose I have a class like this: public class ThingManager { List<SomeClass> ItemList; public void AddToList (SomeClass Item) { ItemList.Add(Item); } public void ProcessListItems() { // go through list one item at a time, get item from list, // modify item according to class' purpose } } Assume "SomeClass" is a fairly large class containing methods and members that are quite complex (List<s and arrays, for example) and that there may be a large quantity of them, so not copying vast amounts of data around the program is important. Should the "AddToList" method have "ref" in it or not? And why? It's like trying to learn pointers in C all over again ;-) (which is probably why I am getting confused, I'm trying to relate these to pointers. In C it'd be "SomeClass *Item" and a list of "SomeClass *" variables)

    Read the article

  • Is a "Confirm Email" input good practice when user changes email address?

    - by dibson
    My organization has a form to allow users to update their email address with us. It's suggested that we have two input boxes for email: the second as an email confirmation. I always copy/paste my email address when faced with the confirmation. I'm assuming most of our users are not so savvy. Regardless, is this considered a good practice? I can't stand it personally, but I also realize it probably isn't meant for me. If someone screws up their email, they can't login, and they must call to sort things out.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between using IDisposable vs a destructor in C#?

    - by j0rd4n
    When would I implement IDispose on a class as opposed to a destructor? I read this article, but I'm still missing the point. My assumption is that if I implement IDispose on an object, I can explicitly 'destruct' it as opposed to waiting for the garbage collector to do it. Is this correct? Does that mean I should always explicitly call Dispose on an object? What are some common examples of this?

    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

  • C++ visitor pattern handling templated string types?

    - by Steve the Plant
    I'm trying to use the visitor pattern to serialize the contents of objects. However one snag I'm hitting is when I'm visiting strings. My strings are of a templated type, similar to STL's basic_string. So something like: basic_string<char_type, memory_allocator, other_possible_stuff> \\ many variations possible! Since I can have very many different templated string types, I can't go and add them to my visitor interface. It would be ridiculous. But I can't add templates to my VisitString method because C++ prevents using templates parameters in virtual methods. So what are my options to work around this?

    Read the article

  • overflow-x AND Middle Mouse Button Moving

    - by Rad The Mad
    My Page is 980px in Width, but I have a few design elements (which belong with the background). I positioned them with position: absolute;. This creates a horizontal scrollbar for those who have a =< 1024 resolution. I disabled that scrollbar with overflow-x:hidden on (and for IE7 and etc). However, when I hold my middle mouse button,(i think this applies to laptop touchpads as well) it let's me move around to the right, is it possible to fix this with anything? (javascript, css)? Tested this issues in Chrome, IE, Firefox.

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 Optimization

    - by hgulyan
    I've learned today, if you append to your query OPTION (MAXDOP 0) your query will run on multiple processors and if it's huge query, query will perform faster. I know general guidelines on query optimizations (using indexes, selecting only needed fields etc.), my question is about SQL Server optimization. Maybe changing some options in configurations or anything else. What guidelines are there for SQL Server Optimization? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Should I use IDisposable for purely managed resources?

    - by John Gietzen
    Here is the scenario: I have an object called a Transaction that needs to make sure that only one entity has permission to edit it at any given time. In order to facilitate a long-lived lock, I have the class generating a token object that can be used to make the edits. You would use it like this: var transaction = new Transaction(); using (var tlock = transaction.Lock()) { transaction.Update(data, tlock); } Now, I want the TransactionLock class to implement IDisposable so that its usage can be clear. But, I don't have any unmanaged resources to dispose. however, the TransctionLock object itself is a sort of "unmanaged resource" in the sense that the CLR doesn't know how to properly finalize it. All of this would be fine and dandy, I would just use IDisposable and be done with it. However, my issue comes when I try to do this in the finalizer: ~TransactionLock() { this.Dispose(false); } I want the finalizer to release the transaction from the lock, if possible. How, in the finalizer, do I detect if the parent transaction (this.transaction) has already been finalized? Is there a better pattern I should be using? The Transaction class looks something like this: public sealed class Transaction { private readonly object lockMutex = new object(); private TransactionLock currentLock; public TransactionLock Lock() { lock (this.lockMutex) { if (this.currentLock != null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); this.currentLock = new TransactionLock(this); return this.currentLock; } } public void Update(object data, TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); // ... } } internal void ValidateLock(TransactionLock tlock) { if (this.currentLock == null) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); if (this.currentLock != tlock) throw new InvalidOperationException(/* ... */); } internal void Unlock(TransactionLock tlock) { lock (this.lockMutex) { this.ValidateLock(tlock); this.currentLock = null; } } }

    Read the article

  • How can I refactor this to work without breaking the pattern horribly?

    - by SnOrfus
    I've got a base class object that is used for filtering. It's a template method object that looks something like this. public class Filter { public void Process(User u, GeoRegion r, int countNeeded) { List<account> selected = this.Select(u, r, countNeeded); // 1 List<account> filtered = this.Filter(selected, u, r, countNeeded); // 2 if (filtered.Count > 0) { /* do businessy stuff */ } // 3 if (filtered.Count < countNeeded) this.SendToSuccessor(u, r, countNeeded - filtered) // 4 } } Select(...), Filter(...) are protected abstract methods and implemented by the derived classes. Select(...) finds objects in the based on x criteria, Filter(...) filters those selected further. If the remaining filtered collection has more than 1 object in it, we do some business stuff with it (unimportant to the problem here). SendToSuccessor(...) is called if there weren't enough objects found after filtering (it's a composite where the next class in succession will also be derived from Filter but have different filtering criteria) All has been ok, but now I'm building another set of filters, which I was going to subclass from this. The filters I'm building however would require different params and I don't want to just implement those methods and not use the params or just add to the param list the ones I need and have them not used in the existing filters. They still perform the same logical process though. I also don't want to complicated the consumer code for this (which looks like this) Filter f = new Filter1(); Filter f2 = new Filter2(); Filter f3 = new Filter3(); f.Sucessor = f2; f2.Sucessor = f3; /* and so on adding filters as successors to previous ones */ foreach (User u in users) { foreach (GeoRegion r in regions) { f.Process(u, r, ##); } } How should I go about it?

    Read the article

  • Choosing a design pattern for a class that might change it's internal attributes

    - by the_drow
    I have a class that holds arbitrary state and it's defined like this: class AbstractFoo { }; template <class StatePolicy> class Foo : public StatePolicy, public AbstractFoo { }; The state policy contains only protected attributes that represent the state. The state might be the same for multiple behaviors and they can be replaced at runtime. All Foo objects have the same interface to abstract the state itself and to enable storing Foo objects in containers. I would like to find the least verbose and the most maintainable way to express this.

    Read the article

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • Why should GoTos be bad?

    - by lisn
    I'm using gotos and a lot of them. C++, PHP or COBOL - I use them on nearly all occasions where everybody else would use functions or even classes. Yet my code is Clear Maintainable Bug-free Fast So why does everybody I meet tell me about how bad gotos are? Are there any facts that show that they are "bad"?

    Read the article

  • How to call superconstructor in a neat way

    - by sandis
    So here is my code: public MyClass (int y) { super(y,x,x); //some code } My problem is that in this case i want to generate a 'x' and sent to the super constructor. However the call to the superconstructor must be the first line in this constructor. Of course I could do something like this: int x; { x = generateX(); } But this feels ugly, and then the code will run no matter what constructor I use, which feels not so nice. Right now I am consider encapsulating my whole object in another object that only calculates x and then starts this object. Is this the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Designing different Factory classes (and what to use as argument to the factories!)

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say we have the following piece of code: public class Event { } public class SportEvent1 : Event { } public class SportEvent2 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent1 : Event { } public class MedicalEvent2 : Event { } public interface IEventFactory { bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString); Event CreateEvent(string inputString); } public class EventFactory { private List<IEventFactory> factories = new List<IEventFactory>(); public void AddFactory(IEventFactory factory) { factories.Add(factory); } //I don't see a point in defining a RemoveFactory() so I won't. public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { try { //iterate through all factories. If one and only one of them accepts //the string, generate the event. Otherwise, throw an exception. return factories.Single(factory => factory.AcceptsInputString(inputString)).CreateEvent(inputString); } catch (InvalidOperationException e) { throw new InvalidOperationException("No valid factory found to generate this kind of Event!", e); } } } public class SportEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("SportEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new SportEvent1(); } } public class MedicalEvent1Factory : IEventFactory { public bool AcceptsInputString(string inputString) { return inputString.StartsWith("MedicalEvent1"); } public Event CreateEvent(string inputString) { return new MedicalEvent1(); } } And here is the code that runs it: static void Main(string[] args) { EventFactory medicalEventFactory = new EventFactory(); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent1Factory()); medicalEventFactory.AddFactory(new MedicalEvent2Factory()); EventFactory sportsEventFactory = new EventFactory(); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent1Factory()); sportsEventFactory.AddFactory(new SportEvent2Factory()); } I have a couple of questions: Instead of having to add factories here in the main method of my application, should I try to redesign my EventFactory class so it is an abstract factory? It'd be better if I had a way of not having to manually add EventFactories every time I want to use them. So I could just instantiate MedicalFactory and SportsFactory. Should I make a Factory of factories? Maybe that'd be over-engineering? As you have probably noticed, I am using a inputString string as argument to feed the factories. I have an application that lets the user create his own events but also to load/save them from text files. Later, I might want to add other kinds of files, XML, sql connections, whatever. The only way I can think of that would allow me to make this work is having an internal format (I choose a string, as it's easy to understand). How would you make this? I assume this is a recurrent situation, probably most of you know of any other more intelligent approach to this. I am then only looping in the EventFactory for all the factories in its list to check if any of them accepts the input string. If one does, then it asks it to generate the Event. If you find there is something wrong or awkward with the method I'm using to make this happen, I'd be happy to hear about different implementations. Thanks! PS: Although I don't show it in here, all the different kind of events have different properties, so I have to generate them with different arguments (SportEvent1 might have SportName and Duration properties, that have to be put in the inputString as argument).

    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

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 | 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157  | Next Page >