Search Results

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

Page 161/348 | < Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >

  • Use multiple css files or a single file organised by comments

    - by David
    Hi, what is regarded as the best approach to organising css. At the moment I am using a single link in the head of my xhtml documents as follows: <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style/imports.css" /> In this file im importing several different css files i.e. reset.css, structure.css, skin.css I know there is an overhead in doing this as each requires an extra trip to the server but it makes things much more logical and organised in my opinion. Does anyone have an opinion on how best to organise their css. - Would it be better to put all these seperate css funcions into one single file? Also, is it best practice to minify css.

    Read the article

  • Are protected constructors considered good practice?

    - by Álvaro G. Vicario
    I'm writing some little helper classes to handle trees. Basically, I have a node and a special root node that represents the tree. I want to keep it generic and simple. This is part of the code: <?php class Tree extends TreeNode{ public function addById($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ if( $parent = $this->findNodeById($parent_id) ){ $parent->addChildById($node_id, $generic_content); } } } class TreeNode{ public function __construct($node_id, $parent_id, $generic_content){ // ... } protected function addChildById($node_id, $generic_content){ $this->children[] = new TreeNode($this->node_id, $node_id, $generic_content); } } $Categories = new Tree; $Categories->addById(1, NULL, $foo); $Categories->addById(2, NULL, $bar); $Categories->addById(3, 1, $gee); ?> My questions: Is it sensible to force TreeNode instances to be created through TreeNode::addById()? If it's so, would it be good practise to declare TreeNode::__construct() as private/protected?

    Read the article

  • Haskel dot (.) and dollar ($) composition: correct use.

    - by Robert Massaioli
    I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • My first Lisp macro; is it leaky?

    - by Tom Martin
    I've been working through Practical Common Lisp and as an exercise decided to write a macro to determine if a number is a multiple of another number: (defmacro multp (value factor) `(= (rem ,value ,factor) 0)) so that : (multp 40 10) evaluates to true whilst (multp 40 13) does not The question is does this macro leak in some way? Also is this "good" Lisp? Is there already an existing function/macro that I could have used?

    Read the article

  • How to check for undefined or null variable in javascript

    - by Thomas Wanner
    We are frequently using the following code pattern in our javascript code if(typeof(some_variable) != 'undefined' && some_variable != null) { // do something with some_variable } and I'm wondering whether there is a less verbose way of checking that has the same effect. According to some forums and literature saying simply if(some_variable) { // do something with some_variable } should have the same effect. Unfortunately, Firebug evaluates such a statement as error on runtime when some_variable is undefined, whereas the first one is just fine for him. Is this only an (unwanted) behavior of Firebug or is there really some difference between those two ways ?

    Read the article

  • user interface pattern for associating single or many objects to an entity

    - by Samuel
    Need suggestions on implementing associating single or many objects to an entity. All soccer team players are registered individually (e.g. they are part of 'players' table) A soccer team has many players. The click sequence is like this:- a] Soccer team owner provides a name and brief description of the soccer team. b] Now it wants to add players to this team. c] You have the following button 'Add players to team' which lets you navigate to the 'View Players' page and lets you multi select users from there. Assuming this is a paginated list of players, how do you handle the following:- Do you provide a check box against each player and let the manager do a multi selection. If you need to add more players, it doesn't make sense to show the players who have been already added to the team. Do you mark those entries as not selectable or you would adding showing these entries. If you need to filter, do you provide search filters at the top of this page. Am looking for ideas on how to implement this or sites which have already done something similar.

    Read the article

  • How to expose a constructor variable(sic!) as read-only?

    - by Malax
    Hi StackOverflow! I have this rather simple question about Scala. Given that i have to following class definition: class Foo(var bar: Int) The code which is able to construct an instance of Foo must be able to pass the initial value for bar. But if I define bar as var the User is also able to change its value at runtime which is not what I want. The User should only be able to read bar. bar itself is modified internally so a val is not an option. I think I might be getting an answer very soon as this question is so simple. :-) Cheers, Malax

    Read the article

  • Design pattern for mouse interaction

    - by mike
    I need some opinions on what is the "ideal" design pattern for a general mouse interaction. Here the simplified problem. I have a small 3d program (QT and openGL) and I use the mouse for interaction. Every interaction is normally not only a single function call, it is mostly performed by up to 3 function calls (initiate, perform, finalize). For example, camera rotation: here the initial function call will deliver the current first mouse position, whereas the performing function calls will update the camera etc. However, for only a couple of interactions, hardcoding these (inside MousePressEvent, MouseReleaseEvent MouseMoveEvent or MouseWheelEvent etc) is not a big deal, but if I think about a more advanced program (e.g 20 or more interactions) then a proper design is needed. Therefore, how would you design such a interactions inside QT. I hope I made my problem clear enough, otherwise don't bother complain :-) Thanks

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

    Read the article

  • Why are there magic attributes exposed in the Servlet spec?

    - by Brabster
    It's always seemed a little at odds with the principles of Java that the Java Servlet Spec (2.5 version here) includes a set of magic attributes containing info about included resources, namely: javax.servlet.include.request_uri javax.servlet.include.context_path javax.servlet.include.servlet_path javax.servlet.include.path_info javax.servlet.include.query_string It's not even specifically pointed out in the API documentation, only in the spec where it is a must for correct implementation. This approach feels very wrong, an exposed implementation detail that clients will use and depend on. Why is this information exposed in this way?

    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

  • How do I correct feature envy in this case?

    - by RMorrisey
    I have some code that looks like: class Parent { private Intermediate intermediateContainer; public Intermediate getIntermediate(); } class Intermediate { private Child child; public Child getChild() {...} public void intermediateOp(); } class Child { public void something(); public void somethingElse(); } class Client { private Parent parent; public void something() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().something(); } public void somethingElse() { parent.getIntermediate().getChild().somethingElse(); } public void intermediate() { parent.getIntermediate().intermediateOp(); } } I understand that is an example of the "feature envy" code smell. The question is, what's the best way to fix it? My first instinct is to put the three methods on parent: parent.something(); parent.somethingElse(); parent.intermediateOp(); ...but I feel like this duplicates code, and clutters the API of the Parent class (which is already rather busy). Do I want to store the result of getIntermediate(), and/or getChild(), and keep my own references to these objects?

    Read the article

  • how to tackle a new project

    - by stevo
    Hi, I have a question about best practice on how to tackle a new project, any project. When starting a new project how do you go about tackling the project, do you split it into sections, start writing code, draw up flow diagrams. I'm asking this question because I'm looking for advice on how I can start new projects so I can get going on them quicker. I can have it planned, designed and starting coding with everything worked out. Any advice? Thanks Stephen

    Read the article

  • How to Inserting message into View that depends on session value. ASP.NET MVC. Best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    User have to populate multistep questionnaire web-forms and step messages depend on the option chosen by user at the very beginning. Messages are stored in web.config file. I use asp.net mvc project, strong typed views and keep business logic separated from controller in static class. I don't want to make business logic dependency on web.config. Well, I have to insert message into view that depends on session value. There are at least 2 options how to implement this: View model has property that is populated in controller/businessLogic and rendered in view like <%: Model.HelpMessage1 %>. I have to pass web.config values from controller to businessLogic that makes business logic methods signature too complex. I don't want to make configuration source abstract (in order to let business logic read configuration values from its methods directly) also. Create static helper class that is called from view like <%: ViewHelper.HelpMessage1(Model.Option1) %>. But in this case logic what to show seems to be separated into two classes: business logic & viewHelper. What will you suggest? Thank you in advance!

    Read the article

  • Correct structure and way of website versioning

    - by Saif Bechan
    Recently I use GIT to version my website. It makes it all really easy to see how my project develops and I always have save backups on different places on the web. Now my main question is if it is recommended to version your whole root of the website. I have a basic structure that looks something like this: /httpdocs /config /media /application index.php .htaccess 1) Should I use the /httpdocs folder to version, or should I use the content of the folder. 2) Is it recommended to version the media folder. In the media version I have several images for the overall layout, and some other images for the website. These imagas can be quite large. I work on these images from time to time and so they change. I hardly never need the old image again, so is this not just taking up precious storage space. I would highly appreciate just some basic recommendation on this topic.

    Read the article

  • WPF binding to a boolean on a control

    - by Jose
    I'm wondering if someone has a simple succinct solution to binding to a dependency property that needs to be the converse of the property. Here's an example I have a textbox that is disabled based on a property in the datacontext e.g.: <TextBox IsEnabled={Binding CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> The requirement changes and I want to make it ReadOnly instead of disabled, so without changing my ViewModel I could do this: In the UserControl resources: <UserControl.Resources> <m:NotConverter x:Key="NotConverter"/> </UserControl.Resources> And then change the TextBox to: <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding CanEdit,Converter={StaticResource NotConverter}} Text={Binding MyText}/> Which I personally think is EXTREMELY verbose I would love to be able to just do this(notice the !): <TextBox IsReadOnly={Binding !CanEdit} Text={Binding MyText}/> But alas, that is not an option that I know of. I can think of two options. Create an attached property IsNotReadOnly to FrameworkElement(?) and bind to that property If I change my ViewModel then I could add a property CanEdit and another CannotEdit which I would be kind of embarrassed of because I believe it adds an irrelevant property to a class, which I don't think is a good practice. The main reason for the question is that in my project the above isn't just for one control, so trying to keep my project as DRY as possible and readable I am throwing this out to anyone feeling my pain and has come up with a solution :)

    Read the article

  • Multiple-File Template Implementation

    - by Maxpm
    With normal functions, the declaration and definition are often separated across multiple files like so: // Foo.h namespace Foo { void Bar(); } . // Foo.cpp #include "Foo.h" void Foo::Bar() { cout << "Inside function." << endl; } It is my understanding that this cannot be done with templates. The declaration and definition must not be separate because the appropriate form of the template is created "on-demand" when needed. So, how and where are templates typically defined in a multiple-file project like this? My intuition is that it would be in Foo.cpp because that's where the "meat" of functions normally is, but on the other hand it's the header file that's going to be included.

    Read the article

  • Is it okay if my ViewModel 'creates' bindable user controls for my View?

    - by j0rd4n
    I have an entry-point View with a tab control. Each tab is going to have a user control embedded within it. Each embedded view inherits from the same base class and will need to be updated as a key field on the entry-point view is updated. I'm thinking the easiest way to design this page is to have the entry-point ViewModel create and expose a collection of the tabbed views so the entry-point View can just bind to the user control elements using a DataTemplate on the tab control. Is it okay for a ViewModel to instantiate and provide UI elements for its View?

    Read the article

  • Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

    - by Caspin
    Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

    Read the article

  • Learning Javascript in one weekend?

    - by dueyfinster
    Similiar to this question, I am wondering if experienced Javascript developers have any websites they use with examples to get the basics of Javascript down in 24/28 hours? I have looked at Douglas Crockford's Google Tech Talk and I bought the book "Javascript: the good parts" but I haven't had time to read it.

    Read the article

  • is this a design pattern?

    - by Michel
    Hi all, i have to build some financial data report, and for making the calculation, there are a lot of 'if then' situations: if it's a large client, subtract 10%, if it's postal code equals '10101', add 10%, if the day is on a saturday, make a difficult calculation etc. so i once read about this kind of example, and what they did was (hope i remember well) create a class with some base info and make it possible to add all kinds of calculationobjects to it. So to put what i remembered in pseudo code Basecalc bc = new baseCalc(); //put the info in the bc so other objects can do their if bc.Add(new Largecustomercalc()); bc.Add(new PostalcodeCalc()); bc.add(new WeekdayCalc()); the the bc would run the Calc() methods of all of the added Calc objects. As i type this i think all the Calc objects must be able to see the Basecalc properties to correctly perform their calculation logic. So all the if's are in the different Calc objects and not ALL in the Basecalc. does this make sense? I was wondering if this is some kind of design pattern?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168  | Next Page >