Search Results

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

Page 155/348 | < Previous Page | 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162  | Next Page >

  • How to Communicate between minifb and a GAE-Hosted Silverlight Client

    - by Nick Gotch
    I have a minifb app (technically gminifb) running on Google App Engine with a bunch of handlers for processing all kinds of requests from a Silverlight client. What's the recommended approach for adding the FB GET variables, such as fb_sig, to the HTTP requests? I believe I can technically pass the session key and uid directly and get things to work but it seems there's probably a much better way to do this. I was reading about FBJS AJAX and I'm trying to figure out how I can use it to proxy the HTTP requests from the Silverlight client through it. Is this a good way to do it? And if so, how would I go about doing so? Any other recommendations would be appreciated too. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Looking for design help

    - by jess
    I have this scenario in most of the WindowsForms having grids I have a sequence of code which is similar - AddNewRow(in grid),CreateNewEntity,notifyUser,few other steps Now, I want to use a template kind of pattern.But,my issue is with CreateEntity method since sometimes it is passed a parameter which is different depending on the type of object being created.Should I make createentity accept an "object" type,and cast when the parameter is to be used.What other way can I tackle this design issue? Also,CreateEntity returns the object being created.

    Read the article

  • Why is using a common-lookup table to restrict the status of entity wrong?

    - by FreshCode
    According to Five Simple Database Design Errors You Should Avoid by Anith Sen, using a common-lookup table to store the possible statuses for an entity is a common mistake. Why is this wrong? I disagree that it's wrong, citing the example of jobs at a repair service with many possible statuses that generally have a natural flow, eg.: Booked In Assigned to Technician Diagnosing problem Waiting for Client Confirmation Repaired & Ready for Pickup Repaired & Couriered Irreparable & Ready for Pickup Quote Rejected Arguably, some of these statuses can be normalised to tables like Couriered Items, Completed Jobs and Quotes (with Pending/Accepted/Rejected statuses), but that feels like unnecessary schema complication. Another common example would be order statuses that restrict the status of an order, eg: Pending Completed Shipped Cancelled Refunded The status titles and descriptions are in one place for editing and are easy to scaffold as a drop-down with a foreign key for dynamic data applications. This has worked well for me in the past. If the business rules dictate the creation of a new order status, I can just add it to OrderStatus table, without rebuilding my code.

    Read the article

  • Undo/Redo using Memento: Stack, Queue or just LinkedList?

    - by serhio
    What is the best having when implementing Memento pattern (for Undo/Redo) in witch collection to Keep Mementos? Basically, I need this(c = change, u = undo, r = redo): 0 *c -1 0 *c -2 -1 0 *c -3 -2 -1 0 <u -2 -1 0 1 *c -3 -2 -1 0 Variants: LinkedList - possible in principle, maybe not optimized. Queue - not adapted for this task, IMO. Stack - not adapted for undo AND redo; Double Stack - maybe optimal, but can't control the undo maximum size.

    Read the article

  • standard debugging way for javascript/jquery

    - by ZX12R
    This is my usual way to debug javascript. Include alert(0); to break the flow and find out what is happening. sometimes when i need multiple check points i do alert('the flow is now in function 1'); alert('the flow is now in function 2'); or sometimes just alert('success'); i would like to know if there is any standard way for debugging adopted as i am finding my current method very intrusive. thanks in advance..:)

    Read the article

  • objectWithFieldNAme Best Practice for CoreData

    - by Rafael
    Hello, I'm trying to implements some methods for my CoreData models and I'm wonndering if the way I'm doing it is a good practice. I want to implement methods of the type getObjectsWithFieldName. This methods could be used by severals views. So the way I'm doing it is implementing a Class method in the model in the following way: +(NSArray *)getObjectWithFieldName:(NSString *)fieldName andContext:(NSManagedObjectContext *) context; Is this a good practice? Or there is another way to do it for iPhone Development? Thanks in advanced.

    Read the article

  • Proper design a Model-Controller in Cocoa?

    - by legege
    Hi, I'm trying to design a simple Cocoa application and I would like to have a clear and easy to understand software architecture. Of course, I'm using a basic MVC design and my question concerns the Model layer. For my application, the Model represents data fetched on the Internet with a XML-RPC API. I'm planning to use Core Data to represent a locally fetched version. How should the data be loaded initially? I'm reading the Cocoa Design Pattern book, and they talk about a Model-Controller that is centric to the Model. How would that be done? Thanks!

    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

  • php form submit and the resend infromation screen

    - by Para
    Hello, I want to ask a best practice question. Suppose I have a form in php with 3 fields say name, email and comment. I submit the form via POST. In PHP I try and insert the date into the database. Suppose the insertion fails. I should now show the user an error and display the form filled in with the data he previously inserted so he can correct his error. Showing the form in it's initial state won't do. So I display the form and the 3 fields are now filled in from PHP with echo or such. Now if I click refresh I get a message saying "Are you sure you want to resend information?". OK. Suppose after I insert the data I don't carry on but I redirect to the same page but with the necessary parameters in the query string. This makes the message go away but I have to carry 3 parameters in the query string. So my question is: How is it better to do this? I want to not carry around lots of parameters in the query string but also not get that error. How can this be done? Should I use cookies to store the form information.

    Read the article

  • Process a batch of items, return an object to report on status

    - by Naeem Sarfraz
    I'm looking for a pattern (or good practice) for the following scenario: My function List<BatchItemResponse> Process(List<BatchItem> Data) {..} will process a list of data, and return info on where each item in the batch could be processed. struct BatchItemResponse { int BatchItemID; bool Processed; string Description; } Any thoughts? Is what I've proposed as good as it gets?

    Read the article

  • Should I create subclass NSManagedObject or not?

    - by TP
    Hi, I have spent a few days learning and writing NSCoding and finally got it working. However, it took very long to archive and unarchive the (quite complex) object graph, which is unacceptable. After searching the internet for some time, I think the better way is to use core data. Do you recommend that 1) I should rewrite all my classes as subclasses of NSManagedObject or 2) should I create an instance variable of NSManagedObject in each of my class so that any changes to the class also updates its core data representation? Doing either way will need significant changes to the exiting classes and I think I have to update lots of unit test cases as well if it changes the way the classes are initialized. What do you recommend? I really don't want to head to the wrong approach again... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Where do you extend classes in your rails application?

    - by ro
    Just about to extend the Array class with the following extension: class Array def shuffle! size.downto(1) { |n| push delete_at(rand(n)) } self end end However, I was wondering where a good place to keep these sort of extensions. I was thinking environment.rb or putting in its own file in the initializers directory.

    Read the article

  • Is this physical collection class that contains only static methods an Anti-Pattern?

    - by Tj Kellie
    I'm trying to figure out if I should continue on with a current pattern in an application I'm working in, or refactor this into something else. I have a set of collection classes off a generic base of List. These classes have public constructors but contain only static methods that return collections. They look like this: public class UserObjCollection : BaseCollection<UserObj> { public static UserObjCollection GetAllUserObj() { UserObjCollection obj = new UserObjCollection(); obj.MapObjects(new UserObjDataService().GetAllUserObj()); return obj; } } Is this a Pattern or Anti-Pattern and what are the merits of this over a straight factory pattern?

    Read the article

  • Can i change the view without changing the controller?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Pretend1 there is a place to type in a name:     Name: __________________ When the text box changes, the value is absorbed into the controller, who stores it in data model. Business rules require that a name be entered: if there is no text entered the TextBox should be colored something in the view to indicate baddness; otherwise it can be whatever color the view likes. The TextBox contains a String, the controller handles a String, and the model stores a String. Now lets say i want to improve the view. There is a new kind of text box2 that can be fed not only string-based keyboard input, but also an image. The view (currently) knows how to determine if the image is in the proper format to perform the processing required to extract text out of it. If there is text, then that text can be fed to the controller, who feeds it to the data model. But if the image is invalid, e.g.3 wrong file format invalid dimensions invalid bit depth unhandled or unknown encoding format missing or incorrectly located registration marks contents not recognizable the view can show something to the user that the image is bad. But the telling the user that something is bad is supposed to be the job of the controller. i'm, of course, not going to re-write the controller to handle Image based text-input (e.g. image based names). a. the code is binary locked inside a GUI widget4 b. there other views besides this one, i'm not going to impose a particular view onto the controller c. i just don't wanna. If i have to change things outside of this UI improvement, then i'll just leave the UI unimproved5 So what's the thinking on having different views for the same Model and Controller? Nitpicker's Corner 1 contrived hypothetical example 2 e.g. bar code, g-mask, ocr 3 contrived hypothetical reasons 4 or hardware of a USB bar-code scanner 5 forcing the user to continue to use a DateTimePicker rather than a TextBox

    Read the article

  • Are there any downsides in using C++ for network daemons?

    - by badcat
    Hey guys! I've been writing a number of network daemons in different languages over the past years, and now I'm about to start a new project which requires a new custom implementation of a properitary network protocol. The said protocol is pretty simple - some basic JSON formatted messages which are transmitted in some basic frame wrapping to have clients know that a message arrived completely and is ready to be parsed. The daemon will need to handle a number of connections (about 200 at the same time) and do some management of them and pass messages along, like in a chat room. In the past I've been using mostly C++ to write my daemons. Often with the Qt4 framework (the network parts, not the GUI parts!), because that's what I also used for the rest of the projects and it was simple to do and very portable. This usually worked just fine, and I didn't have much trouble. Being a Linux administrator for a good while now, I noticed that most of the network daemons in the wild are written in plain C (of course some are written in other languages, too, but I get the feeling that 80% of the daemons are written in plain C). Now I wonder why that is. Is this due to a pure historic UNIX background (like KISS) or for plain portability or reduction of bloat? What are the reasons to not use C++ or any "higher level" languages for things like daemons? Thanks in advance! Update 1: For me using C++ usually is more convenient because of the fact that I have objects which have getter and setter methods and such. Plain C's "context" objects can be a real pain at some point - especially when you are used to object oriented programming. Yes, I'm aware that C++ is a superset of C, and that C code is basically C++. But that's not the point. ;)

    Read the article

  • Question about the benefit of using an ORM

    - by johnny
    I want to use an ORM for learning purposes and am try nhibernate. I am using the tutorial and then I have a real project. I can go the "old way" or use an ORM. I'm not sure I totally understand the benefit. On the one hand I can create my abstractions in code such that I can change my databases and be database independent. On the other it seems that if I actually change the database columns I have to change all my code. Why wouldn't I have my application without the ORM, change my database and change my code, instead of changing my database, orm, and code? Is it that they database structure doesn't change that much? I believe there are real benefits because ORMs are used by so many. I'm just not sure I get it yet. Thank you. EDIT: In the tutorial they have many files that are used to make the ORM work http://www.hibernate.org/362.html In the event of an application change, it seems like a lot of extra work just to say that I have "proper" abstraction layers. Because I'm new at it it doesn't look that easy to maintain and again seems like extra work, not less.

    Read the article

  • What is a 'better' approach to query/save from server: DTO or Wcf Data Services?

    - by bonefisher
    From my perspective, the Data Services and their query approach is useful when querying simple object graphs from your server-side domain model. But when you want to query complex dependencies I couldn't create anything good out of it. The classic DTO approach is fine-grained and can handle everything, but the downside is that you have to create Dto classes for every type of server-request which is time consuming and you have to synchronize the Dto type with your domain entity/business logic.

    Read the article

  • Java: Make a method abstract for each extending class

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hi, Is there any keyword or design pattern for doing this? public abstract class Root { public abstract void foo(); } public abstract class SubClass extends Root { public void foo() { // Do something } } public class SubberClass extends SubClass { // Here is it not necessary to override foo() // So is there a way to make this necessary? // A way to obligate the developer make again the override } Thanks

    Read the article

  • Is Assert.Fail() considered bad practice?

    - by Mendelt
    I use Assert.Fail a lot when doing TDD. I'm usually working on one test at a time but when I get ideas for things I want to implement later I quickly write an empty test where the name of the test method indicates what I want to implement as sort of a todo-list. To make sure I don't forget I put an Assert.Fail() in the body. When trying out xUnit.Net I found they hadn't implemented Assert.Fail. Of course you can always Assert.IsTrue(false) but this doesn't communicate my intention as well. I got the impression Assert.Fail wasn't implemented on purpose. Is this considered bad practice? If so why? @Martin Meredith That's not exactly what I do. I do write a test first and then implement code to make it work. Usually I think of several tests at once. Or I think about a test to write when I'm working on something else. That's when I write an empty failing test to remember. By the time I get to writing the test I neatly work test-first. @Jimmeh That looks like a good idea. Ignored tests don't fail but they still show up in a separate list. Have to try that out. @Matt Howells Great Idea. NotImplementedException communicates intention better than assert.Fail() in this case @Mitch Wheat That's what I was looking for. It seems it was left out to prevent it being abused in another way I abuse it.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162  | Next Page >