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 157/348 | < Previous Page | 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164  | Next Page >

  • What classes should I map against with NHibernate?

    - by apollodude217
    Currently, we use NHibernate to map business objects to database tables. Said business objects enforce business rules: The set accessors will throw an exception on the spot if the contract for that property is violated. Also, the properties enforce relationships with other objects (sometimes bidirectional!). Well, whenever NHibernate loads an object from the database (e.g. when ISession.Get(id) is called), the set accessors of the mapped properties are used to put the data into the object. What's good is that the middle tier of the application enforces business logic. What's bad is that the database does not. Sometimes crap finds its way into the database. If crap is loaded into the application, it bails (throws an exception). Sometimes it clearly should bail because it cannot do anything, but what if it can continue working? E.g., an admin tool that gathers real-time reports runs a high risk of failing unnecessarily instead of allowing an admin to even fix a (potential) problem. I don't have an example on me right now, but in some instances, letting NHibernate use the "front door" properties that also enforce relationships (especially bidi) leads to bugs. What are the best solutions? Currently, I will, on a per-property basis, create a "back door" just for NHibernate: public virtual int Blah {get {return _Blah;} set {/*enforces BR's*/}} protected virtual int _Blah {get {return blah;} set {blah = value;}} private int blah; I showed the above in C# 2 (no default properties) to demonstrate how this gets us basically 3 layers of, or views, to blah!!! While this certainly works, it does not seem ideal as it requires the BL to provide one (public) interface for the app-at-large, and another (protected) interface for the data access layer. There is an additional problem: To my knowledge, NHibernate does not give you a way to distinguish between the name of the property in the BL and the name of the property in the entity model (i.e. the name you use when you query, e.g. via HQL--whenever you give NHibernate the name (string) of a property). This becomes a problem when, at first, the BR's for some property Blah are no problem, so you refer to it in your O/R mapping... but then later, you have to add some BR's that do become a problem, so then you have to change your O/R mapping to use a new _Blah property, which breaks all existing queries using "Blah" (common problem with programming against strings). Has anyone solved these problems?!

    Read the article

  • must have tools for better quality code

    - by leon
    I just started my real development career and I want to know what set of tools/strategy that the community is using to write better quality code. To start, I use astyle to format my code doxygen to document my code gcc -Wall -Wextra -pedantic and clang -Wall -Wextra -pedantic to check all warnings What tools/strategy do you use to write better code? This question is open to all language and all platform.

    Read the article

  • Multiple asserts in single test?

    - by Gern Blandston
    Let's say I want to write a function that validates an email address with a regex. I write a little test to check my function and write the actual function. Make it pass. However, I can come up with a bunch of different ways to test the same function ([email protected]; [email protected]; test.test.com, etc). Do I put all the incantations that I need to check in the same, single test with several ASSERTS or do I write a new test for every single thing I can think of? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Opinions regarding C++ programming practice

    - by Sagar
    I have a program that I am writing, not too big. Apart from the main function, it has about 15 other functions that called for various tasks at various times. The code works just fine all in one file, and as it is right now. However, I was wondering if anyone had any advice on whether it is smarter/more efficient/better programming to put those functions in a separate file different from where main is, or whether it even matters at all. If yes, why? If no, why not? I am not new at C++, but definitely not an expert either, so if you think this question is stupid, feel free to tell me so. Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • Improving MVP in Scala

    - by Alexey Romanov
    The classical strongly typed MVP pattern looks like this in Scala: trait IView { } trait Presenter[View <: IView] { // or have it as an abstract type member val view : View } case class View1(...) extends IView { ... } case object Presenter1 extends Presenter[View1] { val view = View1(...) } Now, I wonder if there is any nice way to improve on it which I am missing...

    Read the article

  • Howto mix TDD and RAII

    - by f4
    I'm trying to make extensive tests for my new project but I have a problem. Basically I want to test MyClass. MyClass makes use of several other class which I don't need/want to do their job for the purpose of the test. So I created mocks (I use gtest and gmock for testing) But MyClass instantiate everything it needs in it's constructor and release it in the destructor. That's RAII I think. So I thought, I should create some kind of factory, which creates everything and gives it to MyClass's constructor. That factory could have it's fake for testing purposes. But's thats no longer RAII right? Then what's the good solution here?

    Read the article

  • When NOT to use MVVM?

    - by Vitalij
    I have started using MVVM pattern recently. I have had several projects where I used it and with every new one, I start to see that it will fit great within that new project. And now I start to ask myself are there situation when it's better NOT to use MVVM. Or is it such a nice pattern which you can use anywhere? Could you please describe several scenarios where MVVM wouldn't be the best choice?

    Read the article

  • C# Linq: Can you merge DataContexts?

    - by Andreas Grech
    Say I have one database, and this database has a set of tables that are general to all Clients and some tables that are specific to certain clients. Now what I have in mind is creating a primary DataContext that includes only the tables that are general to all the clients, and then create separate DataContexts that contain only the tables that are specific to the client. Is there a way to kind of "merge" DataContexts so that it becomes one context? So for Client A, I need one DataContext that includes both the general tables and also the tables for that specific client (retrieved from two different DataContexts) ? [Update] What I think I can do is, from the Partial Class of the DataContext instead of letting my DataContext inherit from DataContext I make it inherit from MyDataContext; that way, the tables from MyDataContext and the other DataContext will be available in one DataContext class. What do you think about this approach? Of course with something like this you can only merge two datacontexts at once though...

    Read the article

  • how to minimize application downtime when updating database and application ORM

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why do I need to give my options a value attribute in my dropdown? JQuery related.

    - by Alex
    So far in my web developing experiences, I've noticed that almost all web developers/designers choose to give their options in a select a value like so: <select name="foo"> <option value="bar">BarCheese</option> // etc. // etc. </select> Is this because it is best practice to do so? I ask this because I have done a lot of work with jQuery and dropdown's lately, and sometimes I get really annoyed when I have to check something like: $('select[name=foo]').val() == "bar"); To me, many times that seems less clear than just being able to check the val() against BarCheese. So why is it that most web developers/designers specify a value paramater instead of just letting the options actual value be its value? And yes, if the option has a value attribute I know I can do something like this: $('select[name=foo] option:contains("BarCheese")').attr('selected', 'selected'); But I would still really like to know why this is done. Thanks!!

    Read the article

  • how to handle exceptions/errors in php?

    - by fayer
    when using 3rd part libraries they tend to throw exceptions to the browser and hence kill the script. eg. if im using doctrine and insert a duplicate record to the database it will throw an exception. i wonder, what is best practice for handling these exceptions. should i always do a try...catch? but doesn't that mean that i will have try...catch all over the script and for every single function/class i use? Or is it just for debugging? i don't quite get the picture. Cause if a record already exists in a database, i want to tell the user "Record already exists". And if i code a library or a function, should i always use "throw new Expcetion($message, $code)" when i want to create an error? Please shed a light on how one should create/handle exceptions/errors. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Under what circumstances is jQuery's document.ready() not required?

    - by Phil.Wheeler
    While John Resig's recommendation is, quite rightly, to declare all events within a jquery.document.ready() function, I know that you don't actually have to put everything in there. In fact, there are cases where it may be more appropriate to deliberately put methods outside of the ready event. But what are those cases? Obviously best practice dictates that all events are declared within the ready event, so what would best practice be for declarations outside that event?

    Read the article

  • What are some good usability guidelines an average developer should follow?

    - by Allain Lalonde
    I'm not a usability specialist, and I really don't care to be one. I just want a small set of rules of thumb that I can follow while coding my User Interfaces so that my product has decent usability. At first I thought that this question would be easy to answer "Use your common sense", but if it's so common among us developers we wouldn't, as a group, have a reputation for our horrible interfaces. Any Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • How does the verbosity of identifiers affect the performance of a programmer?

    - by DR
    I always wondered: Are there any hard facts which would indicate that either shorter or longer identifiers are better? Example: clrscr() opposed to ClearScreen() Short identifiers should be faster to read because there are fewer characters but longer identifiers often better resemble natural language and therefore also should be faster to read. Are there other aspects which suggest either a short or a verbose style? EDIT: Just to clarify: I didn't ask: "What would you do in this case?". I asked for reasons to prefer one over the other, i.e. this is not a poll question. Please, if you can, add some reason on why one would prefer one style over the other.

    Read the article

  • Is this 2D array initialization a bad idea?

    - by Brendan Long
    I have something I need a 2D array for, but for better cache performance, I'd rather have it actually be a normal array. Here's the idea I had but I don't know if it's a terrible idea: const int XWIDTH = 10, YWIDTH = 10; int main(){ int * tempInts = new int[XWIDTH * YWIDTH]; int ** ints = new int*[XWIDTH]; for(int i=0; i<XWIDTH; i++){ ints[i] = &tempInts[i*YWIDTH]; } // do things with ints delete[] ints[0]; delete[] ints; return 0; } So the idea is that instead of newing a bunch of arrays (and having them placed in different places in memory), I just point to an array I made all at once. The reason for the delete[] (int*) ints; is because I'm actually doing this in a class and it would save [trivial amounts of] memory to not save the original pointer. Just wondering if there's any reasons this is a horrible idea. Or if there's an easier/better way. The goal is to be able to access the array as ints[x][y] rather than ints[x*YWIDTH+y].

    Read the article

  • I don't like Python functions that take two or more iterables. Is it a good idea?

    - by Xavier Ho
    This question came from looking at this question on Stackoverflow. def fringe8((px, py), (x1, y1, x2, y2)): Personally, it's been one of my pet peeves to see a function that takes two arguments with fixed-number iterables (like a tuple) or two or more dictionaries (Like in the Shotgun API). It's just hard to use, because of all the verbosity and double-bracketed enclosures. Wouldn't this be better: >>> class Point(object): ... def __init__(self, x, y): ... self.x = x ... self.y = y ... >>> class Rect(object): ... def __init__(self, x1, y1, x2, y2): ... self.x1 = x1 ... self.y1 = y1 ... self.x2 = x2 ... self.y2 = y2 ... >>> def fringe8(point, rect): ... # ... ... >>> >>> point = Point(2, 2) >>> rect = Rect(1, 1, 3, 3) >>> >>> fringe8(point, rect) Is there a situation where taking two or more iterable arguments is justified? Obviously the standard itertools Python library needs that, but I can't see it being pretty in maintainable, flexible code design.

    Read the article

  • Get absolute (base) url in sinatra.

    - by berkes
    Right now, I do a get '/' do set :base_url, "#{request.env['rack.url_scheme']}://#{request.env['HTTP_HOST']}" # ... haml :index end to be able to use options.base_url in the HAML index.haml. But I am sure there is a far better, DRY, way of doing this. Yet I cannot see, nor find it. (I am new to Sinatra :)) Somehow, outside of get, I don't have request.env available, or so it seems. So putting it in an include did not work. How do you get your base url?

    Read the article

  • CSS selectors : should I minimise my use of the class attribute in the HTML or optimise the speed

    - by Laurent Bourgault-Roy
    As I was working on a small website, I decided to use the PageSpeed extension to check if their was some improvement I could do to make the site load faster. However I was quite surprise when it told me that my use of CSS selector was "inefficient". I was always told that you should keep the usage of the class attribute in the HTML to a minimum, but if I understand correctly what PageSpeed tell me, it's much more efficient for the browser to match directly against a class name. It make sense to me, but it also mean that I need to put more CSS classes in my HTML. It also make my .css file a little harder to read. I usually tend to mark my CSS like this : #mainContent p.productDescription em.priceTag { ... } Which make it easy to read : I know this will affect the main content and that it affect something in a paragraph tag (so I wont start to put all sort of layout code in it) that describe a product and its something that need emphasis. However it seem I should rewrite it as .priceTag { ... } Which remove all context information about the style. And if I want to use differently formatted price tag (for example, one in a list on the sidebar and one in a paragraph), I need to use something like that .paragraphPriceTag { ... } .listPriceTag { ... } Which really annoy me since I seem to duplicate the semantic of the HTML in my classes. And that mean I can't put common style in an unqualified .priceTag { ... } and thus I need to replicate the style in both CSS rule, making it harder to make change. (Altough for that I could use multiple class selector, but IE6 dont support them) I believe making code harder to read for the sake of speed has never been really considered a very good practice . Except where it is critical, of course. This is why people use PHP/Ruby/C# etc. instead of C/assembly to code their site. It's easier to write and debug. So I was wondering if I should stick with few CSS classes and complex selector or if I should go the optimisation route and remove my fancy CSS selectors for the sake of speed? Does PageSpeed make over the top recommandation? On most modern computer, will it even make a difference?

    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

  • Eclipse: Should I create a workspace for each project ?

    - by Zombies
    I am simply wondering whether it is best to put all of my Eclipse projects into one workspace, or do a 1 workspace per 1 project. I am just a solo developer, for hobby more or less, but the apps I create do actually have production versions that are running on rather frequent cron jobs, so its almost like an amateur production environment. The only problems I have noticed so far is for exporting JARs, I have the potential to include source files from other projects which seems like it could get messy (maybe?).

    Read the article

  • What are the 'big' advantages to have Poco with ORM?

    - by bonefisher
    One advantage that comes to my mind is, if you use Poco classes for Orm mapping, you can easily switch from one ORM to another, if both support Poco. Having an ORM with no Poco support, e.g. mappings are done with attributes like the DataObjects.Net Orm, is not an issue for me, as also with Poco-supported Orms and theirs generated proxy entities, you have to be aware that entities are actually DAO objects bound to some context/session, e.g. serializing is a problem, etc..

    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 | 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164  | Next Page >