Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and practices'.

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

• Help naming a class that has a single public method called Execute()

  - by devoured elysium

  I have designed the following class that should work kind of like a method (usually the user will just run Execute()): public abstract class ??? { protected bool hasFailed = false; protected bool hasRun = false; public bool HasFailed { get { return hasFailed; } } public bool HasRun { get { return hasRun; } } private void Restart() { hasFailed = false; hasRun = false; } public bool Execute() { ExecuteImplementation(); bool returnValue = hasFailed; Restart(); return returnValue; } protected abstract void ExecuteImplementation(); } My question is: how should I name this class? Runnable? Method(sounds awkward)?

  Read the article

• Should I create protected constructor for my singleton classes?

  - by Vijay Shanker

  By design, in Singleton pattern the constructor should be marked private and provide a creational method retuning the private static member of the same type instance. I have created my singleton classes like this only. public class SingletonPattern {// singleton class private static SingletonPattern pattern = new SingletonPattern(); private SingletonPattern() { } public static SingletonPattern getInstance() { return pattern; } } Now, I have got to extend a singleton class to add new behaviors. But the private constructor is not letting be define the child class. I was thinking to change the default constructor to protected constructor for the singleton base class. What can be problems, if I define my constructors to be protected? Looking for expert views....

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• What is the replacement for a blinking text in a web page?

  - by rahul

  Hi, I have heard that using blinking text in a page to get user's attention is not a good practice. What is the alternative for that?

  Read the article

• What are the reasons for casting a void pointer?

  - by Maulrus

  I'm learning C++ from scratch, and as such I don't have an expert understanding of C. In C++, you can't cast a void pointer to whatever, and I understand the reasons behind that. However, I know that in C, you can. What are the possible reasons for this? It just seems like it's be a huge hole in type safety, which (to me) seems like a bad thing.

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Is it against best practice to throw Exception on most JUnit tests?

  - by Chris Knight

  Almost all of my JUnit tests are written with the following signature: public void testSomething() throws Exception My reasoning is that I can focus on what I'm testing rather than exception handling which JUnit appears to give me for free. But am I missing anything by doing this? Is it against best practice? Would I gain anything by explicitly catching specific exceptions in my test and then fail()'ing on them?

  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

• Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

  - by polygenelubricants

  Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

  Read the article

• What Getters and Setters should and shouldn't do.

  - by cyclotis04

  I've run into a lot of differing opinions on Getters and Setters lately, so I figured I should make it into it's own question. A previous question of mine received an immediate comment (later deleted) that stated setters shouldn't have any side effects, and a SetProperty method would be a better choice. Indeed, this seems to be Microsoft's opinion as well. However, their properties often raise events, such as Resized when a form's Width or Height property is set. OwenP also states "you shouldn't let a property throw exceptions, properties shouldn't have side effects, order shouldn't matter, and properties should return relatively quickly." Yet Michael Stum states that exceptions should be thrown while validating data within a setter. If your setter doesn't throw an exception, how could you effectively validate data, as so many of the answers to this question suggest? What about when you need to raise an event, like nearly all of Microsoft's Control's do? Aren't you then at the mercy of whomever subscribed to your event? If their handler performs a massive amount of information, or throws an error itself, what happens to your setter? Finally, what about lazy loading within the getter? This too could violate the previous guidelines. What is acceptable to place in a getter or setter, and what should be kept in only accessor methods?

  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

• ASP.Net MVC: User messages stack implementations

  - by SDReyes

  How would you implement a user message stack in ASP.Net MVC (you set messages for the user in any place inside your app. and they are shown as hints of your app to the user anywhere inside the app) Example:

  Read the article

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