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 151/348 | < Previous Page | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >

  • Best practice to include log4Net external config file in ASP.NET

    - by Martin Buberl
    I have seen at least two ways to include an external log4net config file in an ASP.NET web application: Having the following attribute in your AssemblyInfo.cs file: [assembly: log4net.Config.XmlConfigurator(ConfigFile = "Log.config", Watch = true)] Calling the XmlConfigurator in the Global.asax.cs: protected void Application_Start() { XmlConfigurator.Configure(new FileInfo("Log.config")); } What would be the best practice to do it?

    Read the article

  • Should my validator have access to my entire model?

    - by wb
    As the title states I'm wondering if it's a good idea for my validation class to have access to all properties from my model. Ideally, I would like to do that because some fields require 10+ other fields to verify whether it is valid or not. I could but would rather not have functions with 10+ parameters. Or would that make the model and validator too coupled with one another? Here is a little example of what I mean. This code however does not work because it give an infinite loop! Class User Private m_UserID Private m_Validator Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Property Let Validator(value) Set m_Validator = value m_Validator.Initialize(Me) End Property Public Property Get Validator() Validator = m_Validator End Property Public Property Let UserID(value) m_UserID = value End property Public Property Get UserID() UserID = m_Validator.IsUserIDValid() End property End Class Class Validator Private m_User Public Sub Class_Initialize() End Sub Public Sub Initialize(value) Set m_User = value End Sub Public Function IsUserIDValid() IsUserIDValid = m_User.UserID > 13 End Function End Class Dim mike : Set mike = New User mike.UserID = 123456 mike.Validator = New Validator Response.Write mike.UserID If I'm right and it is a good idea, how can I go a head and fix the infinite loop with the get property UserID? Thank you.

    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

  • What does a WinForm application need to be designed for usability, and be robust, clean, and profess

    - by msorens
    One of the principal problems impeding productivity in software implementation is the classic conundrum of “reinventing the wheel”. Of late I am a .NET developer and even the wonderful wizardry of .NET and Visual Studio covers only a portion of this challenging issue. Below I present my initial thoughts both on what is available and what should be available from .NET on a WinForm, focusing on good usability. That is, aspects of an application exposed to the user and making the user experience easier and/or better. (I do include a couple items not visible to the user because I feel strongly about them, such as diagnostics.) I invite you to contribute to these lists. LIST A: Components provided by .NET These are substantially complete components provided by .NET, i.e. those requiring at most trivial coding to use. “About” dialog -- add it with a couple clicks then customize. Persist settings across invocations -- .NET has the support; just use a few lines of code to glue them together. Migrate settings with a new version -- a powerful one, available with one line of code. Tooltips (and infotips) -- .NET includes just plain text tooltips; third-party libraries provide richer ones. Diagnostic support -- TraceSources, TraceListeners, and more are built-in. Internationalization -- support for tailoring your app to languages other than your own. LIST B: Components not provided by .NET These are not supplied at all by .NET or supplied only as rudimentary elements requiring substantial work to be realized. Splash screen -- a small window present during program startup with your logo, loading messages, etc. Tip of the day -- a mini-tutorial presented one bit at a time each time the user starts your app. Check for available updates -- facility to query a server to see if the user is running the latest version of your app, then provide a simple way to upgrade if a new version is found. Maximize to multiple monitors -- the canonical window allows you to maximize to a single monitor only; in my apps I allow maximizing across multiple monitors with a click. Taskbar notifier -- flash the taskbar when your backgrounded app has new info for the user. Options dialogs -- multi-page dialogs letting the user customize the app settings to his/her own preferences. Progress indicator -- for long running operations give the user feedback on how far there is left to go. Memory gauge -- an indicator (either absolute or percentage) of how much memory is used by your app. LIST C: Stylistic and/or tiny bits of functionality This list includes bits of functionality that are too tiny to merit being called a component, along with stylistic concerns (that admittedly do overlap with the Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines). Design a form for resizing -- unless you are restricting your form to be a fixed size, use anchors and docking so that it does what is reasonable when enlarged or shrunk by the user. Set tab order on a form -- repeated tab presses by the user should advance from field to field in a logical order rather than the default order in which you added fields. Adjust controls to be aware of operating modes -- When starting a background operation with, for example, a “Go” button, disable that “Go” button until the operation completes. Provide access keys for all menu items (per UXGuide). Provide shortcut keys for commonly used menu items (per UXGuide). Set up some (global or important or common) shortcut keys without associating to menu items. Allow some menu items to be invoked with or without modifier keys (shift, control, alt) where the modifier key is useful to vary the operation slightly. Hook up Escape and Enter on child forms to do what is reasonable. Decorate any library classes with documentation-comments and attributes -- this allows Visual Studio to leverage them for Intellisense and property descriptions. Spell check your code! What else would you include?

    Read the article

  • Style of if: to nest or not to nest

    - by Marco
    A colleague of mine and me had a discussion about the following best-practice issue. Most functions/methods start with some parameter checking. I advocate the following style, which avoids nesting. if (parameter one is ugly) return ERROR; if (parameter two is nonsense || it is raining) return ERROR; // do the useful stuff return result; He, who comes from a more functional/logic programming background, prefers the following, because it reduces the number of exit points from the function. if (parameter one is ok) { if (parameter two is ok && the sun is shining) { // do the useful stuff return result } } return ERROR; Which one would you prefer and why?

    Read the article

  • Best practice -- Content Tracking Remote Data (cURL, file_get_contents, cron, et. al)?

    - by user322787
    I am attempting to build a script that will log data that changes every 1 second. The initial thought was "Just run a php file that does a cURL every second from cron" -- but I have a very strong feeling that this isn't the right way to go about it. Here are my specifications: There are currently 10 sites I need to gather data from and log to a database -- this number will invariably increase over time, so the solution needs to be scalable. Each site has data that it spits out to a URL every second, but only keeps 10 lines on the page, and they can sometimes spit out up to 10 lines each time, so I need to pick up that data every second to ensure I get all the data. As I will also be writing this data to my own DB, there's going to be I/O every second of every day for a considerably long time. Barring magic, what is the most efficient way to achieve this? it might help to know that the data that I am getting every second is very small, under 500bytes.

    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

  • How do you PEP 8-name a class whose name is an acronym?

    - by Arrieta
    I try to adhere to the style guide for Python code (also known as PEP 8). Accordingly, the preferred way to name a class is using CamelCase: Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. How can I be consistent with PEP 8 if my class name is formed by two acronyms (which in proper English should be capitalized). For instance, if my class name was 'NASA JPL', what would you name it?: class NASAJPL(): # 1 class NASA_JPL(): # 2 class NasaJpl(): # 3 I am using #1, but it looks weird; #3 looks weird too, and #2 seems to violate PEP 8. Thoughts?

    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 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

  • 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

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • Good case for a Null Object Pattern? (Provide some service with a mailservice)

    - by fireeyedboy
    For a website I'm working on, I made an Media Service object that I use in the front end, as well as in the backend (CMS). This Media Service object manipulates media in a local repository (DB); it provides the ability to upload/embed video's and upload images. In other words, website visitors are able to do this in the front end, but administrators of the site are also able to do this in the backend. I'ld like this service to mail the administrators when a visitor has uploaded/embedded a new medium in the frontend, but refrain from mailing them when they upload/embed a medium themself in the backend. So I started wondering whether this is a good case for passing a null object, that mimicks the mail funcionality, to the Media Service in the backend. I thought this might come in handy when they decide the backend needs to have implemented mail functionality as well. In simplified terms I'ld like to do something like this: Frontend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new StandardMailService() ); Backend: $mediaService = new MediaService( new MediaRepository(), new NullMailService() ); How do you feel about this? Does this make sense? Or am I setting myself up for problems down the road?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages to use StringBuilder versus XmlDocument or related to create XML documetns?

    - by Rob
    This might be a bit of a code smell, but I have seen it is some production code, namely the use of StringBuilder as opposed to XmlDocument when creating XML documents. In some cases these are write once operations (e.g. create the document and save it to disk) where as others are passing the built string to an XmlDocument to preform an XslTransform to a document that is returned to the client. So obvious question: is there merit to doing things this way, is it something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, or is this the wrong way of doing things?

    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

  • If you were developing shareware softwares for windows, would you target the .Net Framework or use n

    - by bohoo
    For the sake of the question, by 'shareware' I mean a software which is relatively small in size (up to few dozens of mb) and available for download and evaluation through a web site. I'm asking this question, because I don't understand something regarding the current state of windows commercial desktop development. It seems to me that: There is no reliable statistic regarding the extent of windows systems with .Net Framework installed. It makes no sense to force the end user to install the 20-60mb .Net for an application which may be smaller. Applications conforms to the term 'shareware' above have a big share on the win os market. Much of them don't need the capabilities of low level languages like c++, and therefore ideally they should be developed with a RAD enviroment. So, One would suppose there will be a blossom of RAD enviroments for native win code. But I know about only one - Delphi, and Delphi is so unpopular. How is that?

    Read the article

  • Win7: Right place to install a program that may be 'shared' with other computers

    - by robsoft
    We have an app that currently installs itself into 'program files\our app', and it puts the internal data files into the common Application Data folder. This means the program is available to any user on that particular PC. Now we want to make a multi-user version of this program, multiple PCs accessing the program at the same time across the network. In the bad old days, under XP, we'd just have the user who installed the app 'share' the app directory and off we'd go. In principle, is this still the 'right' way to do it under Vista/Windows 7? We'd like to do this 'properly' and be as compliant as possible! Is there a recommended 'Microsoft' approach for doing this, or is it largely down to whatever we can get away with and subsequently support (hah!). I've tried researching this on the MS websites but not found anything too helpful at all - it'd be really useful to have a 'if you're trying to install this kind of thing, put it here' type guide for developers!

    Read the article

  • Handling input from a keyboard wedge

    - by JDibble
    Following on from the question asked by Mykroft Best way to handle input from a keyboard “wedge” http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42437/best-way-to-handle-input-from-a-keyboard-wedge. I need to write a class that intercepts key strokes, if the input is determined to be from the keyboard wedge (as described in the above post) the data will be directed to POS classes to handle, otherwise they keystrokes must be passed on to be handled in windows in the normal manner. This raises two questions How can I intercept key strokes when not in a WinForm. How can I pass on the keypresses to windows. Thanks JDibble

    Read the article

  • JavaScript Module Pattern - What about using "return this"?

    - by Rob
    After doing some reading about the Module Pattern, I've seen a few ways of returning the properties which you want to be public. One of the most common ways is to declare your public properties and methods right inside of the "return" statement, apart from your private properties and methods. A similar way (the "Revealing" pattern) is to provide simply references to the properties and methods which you want to be public. Lastly, a third technique I saw was to create a new object inside your module function, to which you assign your new properties before returning said object. This was an interesting idea, but requires the creation of a new object. So I was thinking, why not just use "this.propertyName" to assign your public properties and methods, and finally use "return this" at the end? This way seems much simpler to me, as you can create private properties and methods with the usual "var" or "function" syntax, or use the "this.propertyName" syntax to declare your public methods. Here's the method I'm suggesting: (function() { var privateMethod = function () { alert('This is a private method.'); } this.publicMethod = function () { alert('This is a public method.'); } return this; })(); Are there any pros/cons to using the method above? What about the others?

    Read the article

  • How to not over-use jQuery?

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Typical jQuery over-use: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + $(this).attr('id')); }); Which can be simplified to: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + this.id); }); Which is way faster. Can you give me any more examples of similar jQuery over-use?

    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

  • 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

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 | 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158  | Next Page >