Search Results

Search found 13710 results on 549 pages for 'partial methods'.

Page 160/549 | < Previous Page | 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167  | Next Page >

  • Opt For the Expert Services of an SEO Consultant

    Targeted traffic is very essential for bringing in business to your online website. You must use the right tools and be aware of the right methods when you pursue an online venture. If you are looking for ways to increase targeted traffic to your website and increase your web presence you should resort to the services of a good SEO consultant.

    Read the article

  • White Label SEO Service - Making Money Online

    The online world is gaining popularity day by day. Almost everything is possible sitting at home just at a click of a mouse. As a matter of fact, there are several methods or programs especially the ones involving selling SEO that have come up lately, which can help you make some good money online.

    Read the article

  • C# TextBox

    A TextBox control accepts user input on a Form. In this article, I will discuss how to create a TextBox control in Windows Forms at design-time as well as run-time. After that, I will continue discussing various properties and methods available for the TextBox control.

    Read the article

  • SEO Secrets - Fighting Against the Domain Age Tide

    There are a whole range of tactics you can adopt to improve your rankings in the search engines. Using well researched and optimised keyword phrases and creating quality backlinks are the obvious methods. You do need to be aware of the age of your domain however and how that can effect your site's perceived trust rating in the search engines.

    Read the article

  • Upgrading Data Tier Applications in SQL Server 2008 R2

    Changes are inevitable and like many other things in life your application will change over time. The question is how to upgrade an already deployed Data Tier Application to a newer version; what are the different methods available for upgrade and what considerations should you take? Join SQL Backup’s 35,000+ customers to compress and strengthen your backups "SQL Backup will be a REAL boost to any DBA lucky enough to use it." Jonathan Allen. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

  • Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

    - by rogcg
    I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

    Read the article

  • Best practice for organizing/storing character/monster data in an RPG?

    - by eclecto
    Synopsis: Attempting to build a cross-platform RPG app in Adobe Flash Builder and am trying to figure out the best class hierarchy and the best way to store the static data used to build each of the individual "hero" and "monster" types. My programming experience, particularly in AS3, is embarrassingly small. My ultra-alpha method is to include a "_class" object in the constructor for each instance. The _class, in turn, is a static Object pulled from a class created specifically for that purpose, so things look something like this: // Character.as package { public class Character extends Sprite { public var _strength:int; // etc. public function Character(_class:Object) { _strength = _class._strength; // etc. } } } // MonsterClasses.as package { public final class MonsterClasses extends Object { public static const Monster1:Object={ _strength:50, // etc. } // etc. } } // Some other class in which characters/monsters are created. // Create a new instance of Character var myMonster = new Character(MonsterClasses.Monster1); Another option I've toyed with is the idea of making each character class/monster type its own subclass of Character, but I'm not sure if it would be efficient or even make sense considering that these classes would only be used to store variables and would add no new methods. On the other hand, it would make creating instances as simple as var myMonster = new Monster1; and potentially cut down on the overhead of having to read a class containing the data for, at a conservative preliminary estimate, over 150 monsters just to fish out the one monster I want (assuming, and I really have no idea, that such a thing might cause any kind of slowdown in execution). But long story short, I want a system that's both efficient at compile time and easy to work with during coding. Should I stick with what I've got or try a different method? As a subquestion, I'm also assuming here that the best way to store data that will be bundled with the final game and not read externally is simply to declare everything in AS3. Seems to me that if I used, say, XML or JSON I'd have to use the associated AS3 classes and methods to pull in the data, parse it, and convert it to AS3 object(s) anyway, so it would be inefficient. Right?

    Read the article

  • Are dynamic languages at disadvantage for agile development?

    - by Gerenuk
    From what I've read agile development often involves refactoring or reverse engineering code into diagrams. Of course there is much more than that, but if we consider the practices that rely on these two methods, are dynamically typed languages at disadvantage? It seem static typing would make refactoring and reverse engineering much easier? Refactoring or (automated) reverse engineering is hard if not impossible in dynamically typed languages? What does real world projects tell about usage of dynamically typed languages for agile methodology?

    Read the article

  • How far should an entity take care of its properties values by itself?

    - by Kharlos Dominguez
    Let's consider the following example of a class, which is an entity that I'm using through Entity Framework. - InvoiceHeader - BilledAmount (property, decimal) - PaidAmount (property, decimal) - Balance (property, decimal) I'm trying to find the best approach to keep Balance updated, based on the values of the two other properties (BilledAmount and PaidAmount). I'm torn between two practices here: Updating the balance amount every time BilledAmount and PaidAmount are updated (through their setters) Having a UpdateBalance() method that the callers would run on the object when appropriate. I am aware that I can just calculate the Balance in its getter. However, it isn't really possible because this is an entity field that needs to be saved back to the database, where it has an actual column, and where the calculated amount should be persisted to. My other worry about the automatically updating approach is that the calculated values might be a little bit different from what was originally saved to the database, due to rounding values (an older version of the software, was using floats, but now decimals). So, loading, let's say 2000 entities from the database could change their status and make the ORM believe that they have changed and be persisted back to the database the next time the SaveChanges() method is called on the context. It would trigger a mass of updates that I am not really interested in, or could cause problems, if the calculation methods changed (the entities fetched would lose their old values to be replaced by freshly recalculated ones, simply by being loaded). Then, let's take the example even further. Each invoice has some related invoice details, which also have BilledAmount, PaidAmount and Balance (I'm simplifying my actual business case for the sake of the example, so let's assume the customer can pay each item of the invoice separately rather than as a whole). If we consider the entity should take care of itself, any change of the child details should cause the Invoice totals to change as well. In a fully automated approach, a simple implementation would be looping through each detail of the invoice to recalculate the header totals, every time one the property changes. It probably would be fine for just a record, but if a lot of entities were fetched at once, it could create a significant overhead, as it would perform this process every time a new invoice detail record is fetched. Possibly worse, if the details are not already loaded, it could cause the ORM to lazy-load them, just to recalculate the balances. So far, I went with the Update() method-way, mainly for the reasons I explained above, but I wonder if it was right. I'm noticing I have to keep calling these methods quite often and at different places in my code and it is potential source of bugs. It also has a detrimental effect on data-binding because when the properties of the detail or header changes, the other properties are left out of date and the method has no way to be called. What is the recommended approach in this case?

    Read the article

  • Creative Targets in SEO Link Building

    SEO link building procedure may take a long period of time to implement and in the long run mean nothing to the site. This calls for creative methods of targeting principle links with harmonized marketability. On the one hand, finding links for known companies will be a powerful and given score to traffic generation whereas outsourcing in unknown individuals mainly through email only have temporary effect on the site.

    Read the article

  • How to refactor a method which breaks "The law of Demeter" principle?

    - by dreza
    I often find myself breaking this principle (not intentially, just through bad design). However recently I've seen a bit of code that I'm not sure of the best approach. I have a number of classes. For simplicity I've taken out the bulk of the classes methods etc public class Paddock { public SoilType Soil { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around paddock information } public class SoilType { public SoilDrainageType Drainage { get; private set; } // a whole bunch of other properties around soil types } public class SoilDrainageType { // a whole bunch of public properties that expose soil drainage values public double GetProportionOfDrainage(SoilType soil, double blockRatio) { // This method does a number of calculations using public properties // exposed off SoilType as well as the blockRatio value in some conditions } } In the code I have seen in a number of places calls like so paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); or within the block object itself in places it's Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.Soil, this.GetBlockRatio()); Upon reading this seems to break "The Law of Demeter" in that I'm chaining together these properties to access the method I want. So my thought in order to adjust this was to create public methods on SoilType and Paddock that contains wrappers i.e. on paddock it would be public class Paddock { public double GetProportionOfDrainage() { return Soil.GetProportionOfDrainage(this.GetBlockRatio()); } } on the SoilType it would be public class SoilType { public double GetProportionOfDrainage(double blockRatio) { return Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(this, blockRatio); } } so now calls where it used would be simply // used outside of paddock class where we can access instances of Paddock paddock.GetProportionofDrainage() or this.GetProportionOfDrainage(); // if used within Paddock class This seemed like a nice alternative. However now I have a concern over how would I enforce this usage and stop anyone else from writing code such as paddock.Soil.Drainage.GetProportionOfDrainage(paddock.Soil, paddock.GetBlockRatio()); rather than just paddock.GetProportionOfDrainage(); I need the properties to remain public at this stage as they are too ingrained in usage throughout the code block. However I don't really want a mixture of accessing the method on DrainageType directly as that seems to defeat the purpose altogether. What would be the appropiate design approach in this situation? I can provide more information as required to better help in answers. Is my thoughts on refactoring this even appropiate or should is it best to leave it as is and use the property chaining to access the method as and when required?

    Read the article

  • Separate Action from Assertion in Unit Tests

    - by DigitalMoss
    Setup Many years ago I took to a style of unit testing that I have come to like a lot. In short, it uses a base class to separate out the Arrangement, Action and Assertion of the test into separate method calls. You do this by defining method calls in [Setup]/[TestInitialize] that will be called before each test run. [Setup] public void Setup() { before_each(); //arrangement because(); //action } This base class usually includes the [TearDown] call as well for when you are using this setup for Integration tests. [TearDown] public void Cleanup() { after_each(); } This often breaks out into a structure where the test classes inherit from a series of Given classes that put together the setup (i.e. GivenFoo : GivenBar : WhenDoingBazz) with the Assertions being one line tests with a descriptive name of what they are covering [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } The Problem There are very few tests that wrap around a single action so you end up with lots of classes so recently I have taken to defining the action in a series of methods within the test class itself: [Test] public void ThenBuzzSouldBeTrue() { because_an_action_was_taken(); Assert.IsTrue(result.Buzz); } private void because_an_action_was_taken() { //perform action here } This results in several "action" methods within the test class but allows grouping of similar tests (i.e. class == WhenTestingDifferentWaysToSetBuzz) The Question Does someone else have a better way of separating out the three 'A's of testing? Readability of tests is important to me so I would prefer that, when a test fails, that the very naming structure of the tests communicate what has failed. If someone can read the Inheritance structure of the tests and have a good idea why the test might be failing then I feel it adds a lot of value to the tests (i.e. GivenClient : GivenUser : WhenModifyingUserPermissions : ThenReadAccessShouldBeTrue). I am aware of Acceptance Testing but this is more on a Unit (or series of units) level with boundary layers mocked. EDIT : My question is asking if there is an event or other method for executing a block of code before individual tests (something that could be applied to specific sets of tests without it being applied to all tests within a class like [Setup] currently does. Barring the existence of this event, which I am fairly certain doesn't exist, is there another method for accomplishing the same thing? Using [Setup] for every case presents a problem either way you go. Something like [Action("Category")] (a setup method that applied to specific tests within the class) would be nice but I can't find any way of doing this.

    Read the article

  • Exactly How SEO Article Submission Services Get Traffic

    Search engine optimization is actually filled with several other methods which aim at enhancing the internet presence of your site. These types of strategies also referred to as SEO services are plentiful and each has its very own unique methodology and advantage. SEO happiness means higher page placement in Yahoo as well as other search engines.

    Read the article

  • Latest alestic ec2 Ubuntu instance seems broken

    - by Kave
    I am using alestic.com ec2 Ubuntu instances now for some time and never had a problem with. Today I created a new Ubuntu 12.04 LTS Precise EBS boot on US-east-1, seems to be a bad build. While doing a sudo apt-get update it breaks and says: W: Failed to fetch bzip2:/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/us-east-1.ec2.archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise-updates_main_source_Sources Hash Sum mismatch This is on a fresh instance. So I recon something went wrong when creating it. What can be done to fix it?

    Read the article

  • Disqus thread migration. Gotchas?

    - by sramsay
    I've been migrating a site to a new domain. The site itself is pretty straightforward (it uses Jekyll), and everything has gone fine -- except migration of Disqus threads. I've had partial success -- some of the threads have migrated successfully, but not all. I've tried the domain migration wizard (which caught a few), the URL mapper (which caught a few), and the 301 redirect crawler (which caught a few). But the remaining threads just won't move, no matter which method I use. So, I suppose I suppose I'm asking if there are any "gotchas" I should know about with this. When you execute any of these migration tools, it says it will "take awhile." Does that mean hours? Days? I can't tell if it's working, and there's no logging or error reporting that I can see.

    Read the article

  • Outsource SEO - A Strong Business Case

    Outsourcing became quite popular in the 1990's as companies raced to reduce costs by moving non-essential functions out of the corporate cost structure. One of the main methods for doing this was to outsource. The basic business case to move any function to a subcontract was quite simple. Subcontractors that focus only on one thing have probably developed a deeper technical understanding of the process and are more effective. Economies of scale allow the outsourcer to provide the same (or higher quality) service at a lower price.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding and Identifying False Sharing Among Threads

    In symmetric multiprocessor (SMP) systems, each processor has a local cache. The memory system must guarantee cache coherence. False sharing occurs when threads on different processors modify variables that reside on the same cache line. Learn methods to detect and correct false sharing.

    Read the article

  • Does it makes sense to backup the whole partition as opposed to their files?

    - by maaartinus
    I know that on Windows it's quite futile to try to backup the "C:" partition file-wise and that's why a full partition backup is needed. Is it OK to backup a the root Linux partition file-wise? Are there any downsides? Clarification Here, I don't care about advantages of partial backups. I'm going to do additional separate backups of /home, etc. What I'm interested in here is the comparison of backup of all files from / vs. backup of the whole partition as device What are the advantages of something like dd if=/dev/sda1 ...?

    Read the article

  • Is there a factory pattern to prevent multiple instances for same object (instance that is Equal) good design?

    - by dsollen
    I have a number of objects storing state. There are essentially two types of fields. The ones that uniquely define what the object is (what node, what edge etc), and the others that store state describing how these things are connected (this node is connected to these edges, this edge is part of these paths) etc. My model is updating the state variables using package methods, so all these objects act as immutable to anyone not in Model scope. All Objects extend one base type. I've toyed with the idea of a Factory approach which accepts a Builder object and constructs the applicable object. However, if an instance of the object already exists (ie would return true if I created the object defined by the builder and passed it to the equal method for the existing instance) the factory returns the current object instead of creating a new instance. Because the Equal method would only compare what uniquely defines the type of object (this is node A to node B) but won't check the dynamic state stuff (node A is currently connected to nodes C and E) this would be a way of ensuring anyone that wants my Node A automatically knows its state connections. More importantly it would prevent aliasing nightmares of someone trying to pass an instance of node A with different state then the node A in my model has. I've never heard of this pattern before, and it's a bit odd. I would have to do some overriding of serialization methods to make it work (ensure that when I read in a serilized object I add it to my facotry list of known instances, and/or return an existing factory in its place), as well as using a weakHashMap as if it was a weakHashSet to know whether an instance exists without worrying about a quasi-memory leak occuring. I don't know if this is too confusing or prone to its own obscure bugs. One thing I know is that plugins interface with lowest level hardware. The plugins have to be able to return state that is different than my memory; to tell my memory when its own state is inconsistent. I believe this is possible despite their fetching objects that exist in my memory; we allow building of objects without checking their consistency with the model until the addToModel is called anyways; and the existing plugins design was written before all this extra state existed and worked fine without ever being aware of it. Should I just be using some other design to avoid this crazyness? (I have another question to that affect that I'm posting).

    Read the article

  • Circular class dependency

    - by shad0w
    Is it bad design to have 2 classes which need each other? I'm writing a small game in which I have a GameEngine class which has got a few GameState objects. To access several rendering methods, these GameState objects also need to know the GameEngine class - so it's a circular dependency. Would you call this bad design? I am just asking, because I am not quite sure and at this time I am still able to refactor these things.

    Read the article

  • Online Businesses Using SEO

    The competition in the market nowadays is very tough because most of the company want to earn and improve their economic status. With the global crisis that we all are experiencing it would be hard to meet the target that you are aiming for your company. However, though it may be a tough competition to face there are still available methods that you can do to increase your income.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167  | Next Page >