Search Results

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

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

  • what's wrong in File.Exist() method?

    - by Arseny
    Reading some answers with code samples I notice that those where this method mentioned are subjected to criticism. I'm using this method in my code. So I'd like to know if someone give me detailed response whuy this method is not recomemnded and what alternative approaches are?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • Pattern or recommneded refactoring for method

    - by iKode
    I've written a method that looks like this: public TimeSlotList processTimeSlots (DateTime startDT, DateTime endDT, string bookingType, IList<Booking> normalBookings, GCalBookings GCalBookings, List<DateTime> otherApiBookings) { { ..... common process code ...... while (utcTimeSlotStart < endDT) { if (bookingType == "x") { //process normal bookings using IList<Booking> normalBookings } else if (bookingType == "y") { //process google call bookings using GCalBookings GCalBookings } else if (bookingType == "z" { //process other apibookings using List<DateTime> otherApiBookings } } } So I'm calling this from 3 different places, each time passing a different booking type, and each case passing the bookings I'm interested in processing, as well as 2 empty objects that aren't used for this booking type. I'm not able to get bookings all into the same datatype, which would make this easier and each booking type needs to be processed differently, so I'm not sure how I can improve this. Any ideas?

    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

  • Managing libraries and imports in a programming language

    - by sub
    I've created an interpreter for a stupid programming language in C++ and the whole core structure is finished (Tokenizer, Parser, Interpreter including Symbol tables, core functions, etc.). Now I have a problem with creating and managing the function libraries for this interpreter (I'll explain what I mean with that later) So currently my core function handler is horrible: // Simplified version myLangResult SystemFunction( name, argc, argv ) { if ( name == "print" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } cout << argv[ 0 ]; } else if ( name == "input" ) { if( argc < 1 ) { Error('blah'); } string res; getline( cin, res ); SetVariable( argv[ 0 ], res ); } else if ( name == "exit ) { exit( 0 ); } And now think of each else if being 10 times more complicated and there being 25 more system functions. Unmaintainable, feels horrible, is horrible. So I thought: How to create some sort of libraries that contain all the functions and if they are imported initialize themselves and add their functions to the symbol table of the running interpreter. However this is the point where I don't really know how to go on. What I wanted to achieve is that there is e.g.: an (extern?) string library for my language, e.g.: string, and it is imported from within a program in that language, example: import string myString = "abcde" print string.at( myString, 2 ) # output: c My problems: How to separate the function libs from the core interpreter and load them? How to get all their functions into a list and add it to the symbol table when needed? What I was thinking to do: At the start of the interpreter, as all libraries are compiled with it, every single function calls something like RegisterFunction( string namespace, myLangResult (*functionPtr) ); which adds itself to a list. When import X is then called from within the language, the list built with RegisterFunction is then added to the symbol table. Disadvantages that spring to mind: All libraries are directly in the interpreter core, size grows and it will definitely slow it down.

    Read the article

  • True or False: Good design calls for every table to have a primary key, if nothing else, a running i

    - by Velika
    Consider a grocery store scenario (I'm making this up) where you have FACT records that represent a sale transaction, where the columns of the Fact table include SaleItemFact Table ------------------ CustomerID ProductID Price DistributorID DateOfSale Etc Etc Etc Even if there are duplicates in the table when you consider ALL the keys, I would contend that a surrogate running numeric key (i.e. identity column) should be made up, e.g., TransactionNumber of type Integer. I can see someone arguing that a Fact table might not have a unique key (though I'd invent one and waste the 4 bytes, but how about a dimension table?

    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

  • Architecture of a single-page JavaScript web application?

    - by fig-gnuton
    How should a complex single-page JS web application be structured on the client-side? Specifically I'm curious about how to cleanly structure the application in terms of its model objects, UI components, any controllers, and objects handling server persistence. MVC seemed like a fit at first. But with UI components nested at various depths (each with their own way of acting on/reacting to model data, and each generating events which they themselves may or may not handle directly), it doesn't seem like MVC can be cleanly applied. (But please correct me if that's not the case.) -- (This question resulted in two suggestions of using ajax, which is obviously needed for anything other than the most trivial one-page app.)

    Read the article

  • Is the a pattern for iterating over lists held by a class (dynamicly typed OO languages)

    - by Roman A. Taycher
    If I have a class that holds one or several lists is it better to allow other classes to fetch those lists(with a getter) or to implement a doXList/eachXList type method for that list that take a function and call that function on each element of the list contained by that object. I wrote a program that did a ton of this and I hated passing around all these lists sometimes with method in class a calling method in class B to return lists contained in class C, B contains a C or multiple C's (note question is about dynamically typed OO languages languages like ruby or smalltalk) ex. (that came up in my program) on a Person class containing scheduling preferences and a scheduler class needing to access them.

    Read the article

  • jQuery: Stopping a periodic ajax call?

    - by Legend
    I am writing a small jQuery plugin to update a set of Divs with content obtained using Ajax calls. Initially, let's assume we have 4 divs. I am doing something like this: (function($) { .... .... //main function $.fn.jDIV = { init: function() { ... ... for(var i = 0; i < numDivs; i++) { this.query(i); } this.handlers(); }, query: function(divNum) { //Makes the relevant ajax call }, handlers: function() { for(var i = 0; i < numDivs; i++) { setInterval("$.fn.jDIV.query(" + i + ")", 5000); } } }; })(jQuery); I would like to be able to enable and disable a particular ajax query. I was thinking of adding a "start" and "stop" instead of the "handlers" function and subsequently storing the setInterval handler like this: start: function(divNum) { divs[divNum] = setInterval("$.fn.jDIV.query(" + i + ")", 5000); }, stop: function(divNum) { clearInterval(divs[divNum]); } I did not use jQuery to setup and destroy the event handlers. Is there a better approach (perhaps using more of jQuery) to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • .Net - Whats the difference between a Session Facade and Business Delegate?

    - by KP65
    What I understand so far: Business Delegate - In the presentation tier, as an ASP component, provides an interface for ASP views to access business components without exposing their API, therefore reducing coupling between the two. Session Facade - In the business tier, as a com+ component, encapsulates business objects, provides a course grain interface for views to access business components. Reduces coupling, hides complex business component interaction from views. So what is the actual difference? They seem pretty similar to me..

    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

  • Manually setting object's position or have the object do it all?

    - by N. Lucas
    I'm stuck thinking about the best way to go about setting a line segment's position, I have a class Line(length, angle, previous) being called from a class Polygon.. Right now I have: public function Line(length:Number, angle:Number, previous:Line = null) { if (previous != null) { this.x = previous.end.x; this.y = previous.end.y; } /**/ } Now, is this the best practice or should I be doing: Polygon.addLine(length:Number, angle:Number):void { var previous = _line[_line.length - 1]; // Array containing all Lines var line:Line = new Line(length, angle, previous); line.x = previous.end.x; line.y = previous.end.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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Why is hibernate open session in view considered a bad practice?

    - by HeDinges
    And what kind of alternative strategies do you use for avoiding LazyLoadExceptions? I do understand that open session in view has issues with: Layered applications running in different jvm's Transactions are committed only at the end, and most probably you would like the results before. But, if you know that your application is running on a single vm, why not ease your pain by using an open session in view strategy?

    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

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