Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns 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 152/348 | < Previous Page | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Should old/legacy/unused code be deleted from source control repository?

    - by Checkers
    I've encountered this in multiple projects. As the code base evolves, some libraries, applications, and components get abandoned and/or deprecated. Most people prefer to keep them in. The usual argument is that the code does not really take any space, it can be left alone until needed again. So a repository slowly turns into a cesspool of legacy code, where it's hard to find anything. Some people delete old code, since it creates clutter, raises more questions for new people, and you can restore any old snapshot of the code base anyway. However you can't always find the old code if you don't know where to look, as none of the (common) VCS I know offer search over the entire repository including all historical revisions, and the only way to search the old files is to check out the revision where the deleted file exists. What would be a good approach to repository management?

    Read the article

  • What makes an effective UI for displaying versioning of structured hierarchical data

    - by Fadrian Sudaman
    Traditional version control system are displaying versioning information by grouping Projects-Folders-Files with Tree view on the left and details view on the right, then you will click on each item to look at revision history for that configuration history. Assuming that I have all the historical versioning information available for a project from Object-oriented model perspective (e.g. classes - methods - parameters and etc), what do you think will be the most effective way to present such information in UI so that you can easily navigate and access the snapshot view of the project and also the historical versioning information? Put yourself in the position that you are using a tool like this everyday in your job like you are currently using SVN, SS, Perforce or any VCS system, what will contribute to the usability, productivity and effectiveness of the tool. I personally find the classical way for display folders and files like above are very restrictive and less effective for displaying deep nested logical models. Assuming that this is a greenfield project and not restricted by specific technology, how do you think I should best approach this? I am looking for idea and input here to add values to my research project. Feel free to make any suggestions that you think is valuable. Thanks again for anyone that shares their thoughts.

    Read the article

  • Does C# allow method overloading, PHP style (__call)?

    - by mr.b
    In PHP, there is a special method named __call($calledMethodName, $arguments), which allows class to catch calls to non-existing methods, and do something about it. Since most of classic languages are strongly typed, compiler won't allow calling a method that does not exist, I'm clear with that part. What I want to accomplish (and I figured this is how I would do it in PHP, but C# is something else) is to proxy calls to a class methods and log each of these calls. Right now, I have code similar to this: class ProxyClass { static logger; public AnotherClass inner { get; private set; } public ProxyClass() { inner = new AnotherClass(); } } class AnotherClass { public void A() {} public void B() {} public void C() {} // ... } // meanwhile, in happyCodeLandia... ProxyClass pc = new ProxyClass(); pc.inner.A(); pc.inner.B(); // ... So, how can I proxy calls to an object instance in extensible way? Extensible, meaning that I don't have to modify ProxyClass whenever AnotherClass changes. In my case, AnotherClass can have any number of methods, so it wouldn't be appropriate to overload or wrap all methods to add logging. I am aware that this might not be the best approach for this kind of problem, so if anyone has idea what approach to use, shoot. Thanks!

    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

  • Multiple REPLACE function in Oracle

    - by Adnan
    I am using the REPLACE function in oracle to replace values in my string like; SELECT REPLACE('THE NEW VALUE IS #VAL1#','#VAL1#','55') from dual So this is OK to replace one value, but what about 20+, should I use 20+ REPLACE function or is there a more practical solution. All ideas are welcome.

    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

  • Is this class + constructor definition pattern overly redundant?

    - by Protector one
    I often come across a pattern similar to this: class Person { public string firstName, lastName; public Person(string firstName, string lastName) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; } } This feels overly redundant (I imagine typing "firstName" once, instead of thrice could be enough…), but I can't think of a proper alternative. Any ideas? Maybe I just don't know about a certain design pattern I should be using here? Edit - I think I need to elaborate a little. I'm not asking how to make the example code "better", but rather, "shorter". In its current state, all member names appear 3 times (declaration, initialization, constructor arguments), and it feels rather redundant. So I'm wondering if there is a pattern (or semantic sugar) to get (roughly) the same behavior, but with less bloat. I apologize for being unclear initially.

    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 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

  • 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

  • Passing HttpFileCollectionBase to the Business Layer - Bad?

    - by Terry_Brown
    hopefully there's an easy solution to this one. I have my MVC2 project which allows uploads of files on certain forms. I'm trying to keep my controllers lean, and handle the processing within the business layer of this sort of thing. That said, HttpFileCollectionBase is obviously in the System.Web assembly. Ideally I want to call to something like: UserService.SaveEvidenceFiles(MyUser user, HttpFileCollectionBase files); or something similar and have my business layer handle the logic of how and where these things are saved. But, it feels a little icky to have my models layer with a reference to System.Web in terms of separation of concerns etc. So, we have (that I'm aware of) a few options: the web project handling this, and my controllers getting fatter mapping the HttpFileCollectionBase to something my business layer likes passing the collection through, and accepting that I reference System.Web from my business project Would love some feedback here on best practice approaches to this sort of thing - even if not specifically within the context of the above.

    Read the article

  • HTTP POST with URL query parameters -- good idea or not?

    - by Steven Huwig
    I'm designing an API to go over HTTP and I am wondering if using the HTTP POST command, but with URL query parameters only and no request body, is a good way to go. Considerations: "Good Web design" requires non-idempotent actions to be sent via POST. This is a non-idempotent action. It is easier to develop and debug this app when the request parameters are present in the URL. The API is not intended for widespread use. It seems like making a POST request with no body will take a bit more work, e.g. a Content-Length: 0 header must be explicitly added. It also seems to me that a POST with no body is a bit counter to most developer's and HTTP frameworks' expectations. Are there any more pitfalls or advantages to sending parameters on a POST request via the URL query rather than the request body? Edit: The reason this is under consideration is that the operations are not idempotent and have side effects other than retrieval. See the HTTP spec: In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. ... Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.

    Read the article

  • What should go in each MVVM triad?

    - by Harry
    OK, let's say I am creating a program that will list users contacts in a ListBox on the left side of the screen. When a user clicks on the contact, a bunch of messages or whatever appears in the main part of the window. Now my question is: how should the MVVM triads look? I have two models: Contact, and Message. The Contact model contains a list of Message models. Each ViewModel object will contain a single corresponding Model, right? And what about the Views? I have a "MainView" that is the main window, that will have things like the menu, toolbar etc. Do I put the ListBox in the MainView? My confusion is with what to put where; for example, what should the ContactView contain? Just a single instance of a contact? So the DataTemplate, ControlTemplate, context menus, styles etc for that single contact, and then just have a ListBox of them in the MainView...? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to properly implement the Strategy pattern in a web MVC framework?

    - by jboxer
    In my Django app, I have a model (lets call it Foo) with a field called "type". I'd like to use Foo.type to indicate what type the specific instance of Foo is (possible choices are "Number", "Date", "Single Line of Text", "Multiple Lines of Text", and a few others). There are two things I'd like the "type" field to end up affecting; the way a value is converted from its normal type to text (for example, in "Date", it may be str(the_date.isoformat())), and the way a value is converted from text to the specified type (in "Date", it may be datetime.date.fromtimestamp(the_text)). To me, this seems like the Strategy pattern (I may be completely wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am). My question is, what's the proper way to code this in a web MVC framework? In a client-side app, I'd create a Type class with abstract methods "serialize()" and "unserialize()", override those methods in subclasses of Type (such as NumberType and DateType), and dynamically set the "type" field of a newly-instantiated Foo to the appropriate Type subclass at runtime. In a web framework, it's not quite as straightforward for me. Right now, the way that makes the most sense is to define Foo.type as a Small Integer field and define a limited set of choices (0 = "Number", 1 = "Date", 2 = "Single Line of Text", etc.) in the code. Then, when a Foo object is instantiated, use a Factory method to look at the value of the instance's "type" field and plug in the correct Type subclass (as described in the paragraph above). Foo would also have serialize() and unserialize() methods, which would delegate directly to the plugged-in Type subclass. How does this design sound? I've never run into this issue before, so I'd really like to know if other people have, and how they've solved it.

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to checking against the system time

    - by vikp
    Hi, I have an application which license should expire after some period of time. I can check the time in the applicatino against the system time, but system time can be changed by the administrator, therefore it's not a good idea to check against the system time in my opinion. What alternatives do I have? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Where to draw the line between efficiency and practicality

    - by dclowd9901
    I understand very well the need for websites' front ends to be coded and compressed as much as possible, however, I feel like I have more lax standards than others when it comes to practical applications. For instance, while I understand why some would, I don't see anything wrong with putting selectors in the <html> or <body> tags on a website with an expected small visitation rate. I would only do this for a cheap website for a small client, because I can't really justify the cost of time otherwise. So, that said, do you think it's okay to draw a line? Where do you draw yours?

    Read the article

  • What lessons can you learn from software maintanence?

    - by Vasil Remeniuk
    Hello everyone, In the perfect world, all the software developers would work with the cutting edge technologies, creating systems from the scratch. In the real life, almost all of us have to maintain software from time to time (unlucky ones do it on a regular basis). Personally I first 2 years of my career was fixing bugs in the company that no longer exists (it has been taken up by Oracle). And probably the biggest lesson I've learned that time - despite of the pressure, always try to get as much information about the domain as possible (even if it's irrelevant to fixing a specific bug or adding a feature) - abstract domain knowledge doesn't lose value as fast as knowledge about trendy frameworks or methodologies. What lessons have you learned from maintenance?

    Read the article

  • Is there a pattern for this?

    - by Timmy
    i have something that requires a matrix of values, similar to pokemon: i have a class object for each of the types, is there a pattern or a good way to implement this, as a middle layer or in the classes?

    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

  • Are we using IoC effectively?

    - by Juliet
    So my company uses Castle Windsor IoC container, but in a way that feels "off": All the data types are registered in code, not the config file. All data types are hard-coded to use one interface implementation. In fact, for nearly all given interfaces, there is and will only ever be one implementation. All registered data types have a default constructor, so Windsor doesn't instantiate an object graph for any registered types. The people who designed the system insist the IoC container makes the system better. We have 1200+ public classes, so its a big system, the kind where you'd expect to find a framework like Windsor. But I'm still skeptical. Is my company using IoC effectively? Is there an advantage to new'ing objects with Windsor than new'ing objects with the new keyword?

    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 | 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159  | Next Page >