Search Results

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

Page 162/348 | < Previous Page | 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169  | Next Page >

• Being pressured to GOTO the dark-side

  - by Dan McG

  We have a situation at work where developers working on a legacy (core) system are being pressured into using GOTO statements when adding new features into existing code that is already infected with spagetti code. Now, I understand there may be arguments for using 'just one little GOTO' instead of spending the time on refactoring to a more maintainable solution. The issue is, this isolated 'just one little GOTO' isn't so isolated. At least once every week or so there is a new 'one little GOTO' to add. This codebase is already a horror to work with due to code dating back to or before 1984 being riddled with GOTOs that would make many Pastafarians believe it was inspired by the Flying Spagetti Monster itself. Unfortunately the language this is written in doesn't have any ready made refactoring tools, so it makes it harder to push the 'Refactor to increase productivity later' because short-term wins are the only wins paid attention to here... Has anyone else experienced this issue whereby everybody agrees that we cannot be adding new GOTOs to jump 2000 lines to a random section, but continually have Anaylsts insist on doing it just this one time and having management approve it? tldr; How can one go about addressing the issue of developers being pressured (forced) to continually add GOTO statements (by add, I mean add to jump to random sections many lines away) because it 'gets that feature in quicker'? I'm beginning to fear we may loses valuable developers to the raptors over this...

  Read the article

• 'is instanceof' Interface bad design

  - by peterRit

  Say I have a class A class A { Z source; } Now, the context tells me that 'Z' can be an instance of different classes (say, B and C) which doesn't share any common class in their inheritance tree. I guess the naive approach is to make 'Z' an Interface class, and make classes B and C implement it. But something still doesn't convince me because every time an instance of class A is used, I need to know the type of 'source'. So all finishes in multiple 'ifs' making 'is instanceof' which doesn't sound quite nice. Maybe in the future some other class implements Z, and having hardcoded 'ifs' of this type definitely could break something. The escence of the problem is that I cannot resolve the issue by adding functions to Z, because the work done in each instance type of Z is different. I hope someone can give me and advice, maybe about some useful design pattern. Thanks

  Read the article

• Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  - by Itay Moav

  Why turning magic_quotes_gpc on in PHP is considered a bad practice?

  Read the article

• Is "for(;;)" faster than "while (TRUE)"? If not, why do people use it?

  - by Chris Cooper

  for (;;) { //Something to be done repeatedly } I have seen this sort of thing used a lot, but I think it is rather strange... Wouldn't it be much clearer to say while (TRUE), or something along those lines? I'm guessing that (as is the reason for many-a-programmer to resort to cryptic code) this is a tiny margin faster? Why, and is it REALLY worth it? If so, why not just define it this way: #DEFINE while(TRUE) for(;;)

  Read the article

• which version of the code below is right?

  - by TheVillageIdiot

  Hi I found this function in a utilities code file: Version 1: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { bool result = true; try { long tmp = long.Parse(strLong); } catch (Exception ex) { result = false; } return result; } I want to replace this (and validators for other types) with following: Version 2: public static bool IsValidLong(string strLong) { long l; return long.TryParse(strLong, out l); } which version is better and why?

  Read the article

• Should a developer write their own test plan for Q/A?

  - by Mat Nadrofsky

  Who writes the test plans in your shop? Who should write them? I realize developers (like me) regularly do their own unit testing whilst developing and in some cases even their own Q/A depending on the size of the shop and the nature of the business, but in a big software shop with a full development team and Q/A team, who should be writing those official "my changes are done now" test plans? Soon, we'll be bringing on another Q/A member to our development team. My question is, going forward, is it a good practice to get your developers to write their own test plans? Something tells me that part of that might make sense but another part might not... What I like about that: Developer is very familiar with the changes made, thus it's easy to produce a document... What I don't like about that: Developer knows how it's supposed to work and might write a test plan that caters to this without knowing it. So, with the above in mind, what is the general stance on this topic? I'm of course already reading books like the Mythical Man-Month, Code Complete and a few others which really do help, but I'd like to get some input from the group as well.

  Read the article

• Where to place the login/authentication related actions in MVC

  - by rogeriopvl

  I've searched around and found that when implementing an authentication module in MVC architecture some people opt to place the login related actions in the User controller while others place it in a controller dedicated to authentication only. In pseudo-java-like code: class UserController extends Controller { public login() { //... } } Accessed with http://mydomain.com/user/login. vs. class AuthController extends Controller { public login() { //... } } Accessed with http://mydomain.com/auth/login. I would like to know which approach is better, and why. That is, if there's really any difference at all. Thanks 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

• 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

• MVP pattern. Presenter requires new view instance. Best practice

  - by Andrew Florko

  I try to apply MVP pattern for win.forms application. I have 2 forms: main & child. Main has a button and when you click it - child form should appear. There are 2 views interfaces that forms implement IMainView { event OnClick; ... } IChildView { ... } There are two presenters MainPresenter(IMainView) & ChildPresenter(IChildView) MainPresenter listens to OnClick event and then should create IChildView implementation. MainPresenter { ... MainClicked() { // it's required to create IChildView instance here } } How would you implement such creation typically? Shall IMainView has factory method for IChildView or may be it should be separate Views factory. What would you advise? Or maybe there is some misunderstanding of MVP here? Thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• Conceptually, how does replay work in a game?

  - by SnOrfus

  I was kind of curious as to how replay might be implemented in a game. Initially, I thought that there would be just a command list of every player/ai action that was taken in the game, and it then 're-plays' the game and lets the engine render as usual. However, I have looked at replays in FPS/RTS games, and upon careful inspection even things like the particles and graphical/audible glitches are consistent (and those glitches are generally *in*consistent). So How does this happen. In fixed camera angle games I though it might just write every frame of the whole scene to a stream that gets stored and then just replays the stream back, but that doesn't seem like enough for games that allow you to pause and move the camera around. You'd have to store the locations of everything in the scene at all points in time (No?). So for things like particles, that's a lot of data to push which seems like a significant draw on the game's performance whilst playing.

  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

• Where do you put your dependencies?

  - by The All Foo

  If I use the dependency injection pattern to remove dependencies they end up some where else. For example, Snippet 1, or what I call Object Maker. I mean you have to instantiate your objects somewhere...so when you move dependency out of one object, you end up putting it another one. I see that this consolidates all my dependencies into one object. Is that the point, to reduce your dependencies so that they all reside in a single ( as close to as possible ) location? Snippet 1 - Object Maker <?php class ObjectMaker { public function makeSignUp() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignUpObject = new ControlSignUp(); $SignUpObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignUpObject; } public function makeSignIn() { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); $SignInObject = new ControlSignIn(); $SignInObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $SignInObject; } public function makeTweet( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $TweetObject = new ControlTweet(); $TweetObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject, $TextObject, $MessageObject); return $TweetObject; } public function makeBookmark( $DatabaseObject = NULL, $TextObject = NULL, $MessageObject = NULL ) { if( $DatabaseObject == 'small' ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); } else if( $DatabaseObject == NULL ) { $DatabaseObject = new Database(); $TextObject = new Text(); $MessageObject = new Message(); } $BookmarkObject = new ControlBookmark(); $BookmarkObject->setObjects($DatabaseObject,$TextObject,$MessageObject); return $BookmarkObject; } }

  Read the article

• What single design or programming decision have you made, that ended up paying off in spades later o

  - by Ross Charette

  What single design or programming decision have you made, that ended up paying off in spades later on?

  Read the article

• Interpreter in C++: Function table storage problem

  - by sub

  In my interpreter I have built-in functions available in the language like print exit input, etc. These functions can obviously be accessed from inside the language. The interpreter then looks for the corresponding function with the right name in a vector and calls it via a pointer stored with its name. So I gather all these functions in files like io.cpp, string.cpp, arithmetic.cpp. But I have to add every function to the function list in the interpreter in order for it to be found. So in these function files I have things like: void print( arg ) { cout << arg.ToString; } I'd add this print function to the interpreter function list with: interpreter.AddFunc( "print", print ); But where should I call the interpreter.AddFunc? I can't just put it there below the print function as it has to be in a function according to the C++ syntax. Where and how should all the functions be added to the list?

  Read the article

• Is it OK to write code after [super dealloc]? (Objective-C)

  - by Richard J. Ross III

  I have a situation in my code, where I cannot clean up my classes objects without first calling [super dealloc]. It is something like this: // Baseclass.m @implmentation Baseclass ... -(void) dealloc { [self _removeAllData]; [aVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [anotherVariableThatBelongsToMe release]; [super dealloc]; } ... @end This works great. My problem is, when I went to subclass this huge and nasty class (over 2000 lines of gross code), I ran into a problem: when I released my objects before calling [super dealloc] I had zombies running through the code that were activated when I called the [self _removeAllData] method. // Subclass.m @implementation Subclass ... -(void) deallloc { [super dealloc]; [someObjectUsedInTheRemoveAllDataMethod release]; } ... @end This works great, and It didn't require me to refactor any code. My question Is this: Is it safe for me to do this, or should I refactor my code? Or maybe autorelease the objects? I am programming for iPhone if that matters any.

  Read the article

• typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

  - by Thor Thurn

  I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

  Read the article

• How to handle too many files in Qt

  - by mree

  I'm not sure how to ask this, but here goes the question: I'm migrating from J2SE to Qt. After creating some small applications in Qt, I noticed that I've created way too many files compared to what I would've create if I was developing in Java (I use Netbeans). For an example, for a GUI to Orders, I'd have to create Main Order Search Window Edit Order Dialog Manage Order Dialog Maybe some other dialogs... For Java, I don't have to create a new file for every new Dialog, the Dialog will be created in the JFrame class itself. So, I will only be seeing 1 file for Orders which has other Dialogs in it. However, in Qt, I'd have to create 1 ui file, 1 header file, 1 cpp file for each of the Dialog (I know I can just put the cpp in the header, but it's easier to view codes in seperate files). So, in the end, I might end up with 3 (if there are 3 dialogs) x3 files = 9 files for the GUI in Qt, compared to Java which is only 1 file. I do know that I can create a GUI by coding it manually. But it seems easy on small GUIs but not some on complicated GUIs with lots of inputs, tabs and etc. So, is there any suggestion on how to minimize the file created in Qt?

  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

• Whats the best semantic default/starting layout for html5?

  - by John Isaacks

  I am a little confused on how the new tags should go. Is this correct: <!DOCTYPE HTML> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> </head> <body> <section> <header> <nav></nav> </header> <section> </section> <footer> </footer> <section> </body> </html> Or should one of the sections be an <article>? What should be the starting layout?

  Read the article

• What is the best practice for accessing Model using MVVM pattern

  - by Dzenand

  I have a database that communicates with webservices with my Model (own thread) and exposes Data Objects. My UI application consists of different Views and ViewModels and Custom Controls. I'm using ServiceProvider (IServiceProvider) to access the Model and route the events to the UI thread. Communication between the ViewModels is handeled by a Messenger. Is this way to go? I was also wondering what is the best way to strucutre the DataObjects At the moment i have the DataObjects that have a hierarchy structure but does not support INotifyProperty though the children list are of type of ObservableCollection. I have no possiblity to implement notifypropertychange on the properties. I was wondering the best way of making them MVVM friendly. Implementing a partial class and adding all the properties or commands that are necessary or wrapping all the DataObjects and keep the Model list and MVVM list in sync. All thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

  Read the article

• Sequential Asynchronous calls are gross. Is there a more readable solution?

  - by Fletcher Moore

  The problem is this is hard to follow: ajaxOne(function() { // do something ajaxTwo(function() { // do something ajaxThree() }); }); I'm using a third party API to make the AJAX calls, so I need a generic solution.

  Read the article

• design decision between array or object save in database

  - by justjoe

  i code some configuration setting. And need those values to be load, everytime my webapp start. yes, it's somekind autoload setting. But, right now, i have to choose between save it as object or array. is there any different between them when we save them in database ? which one is faster or maintainable or other pro and cons thanks

  Read the article

• Saving a Django form with a Many2Many field with through table

  - by PhilGo20

  So I have this model with multiple Many2Many relationship. 2 of those (EventCategorizing and EventLocation are through tables/intermediary models) class Event(models.Model): """ Event information for Way-finding and Navigator application""" categories = models.ManyToManyField('EventCategorizing', null=True, blank=True, help_text="categories associated with the location") #categories associated with the location images = models.ManyToManyField(KMSImageP, null=True, blank=True) #images related to the event creator = models.ForeignKey(User, verbose_name=_('creator'), related_name="%(class)s_created") locations = models.ManyToManyField('EventLocation', null=True, blank=True) In my view, I first need to save the creator as the request user, so I use the commit=False parameter to get the form values. if event_form.is_valid(): event = event_form.save(commit=False) #we save the request user as the creator event.creator = request.user event.save() event = event_form.save_m2m() event.save() I get the following error: *** TypeError: 'EventCategorizing' instance expected I can manually add the M2M relationship to my "event" instance, but I am sure there is a simpler way. Am I missing on something ?

  Read the article

• Truth tables in code? How to structure state machine?

  - by HanClinto

  I have a (somewhat) large truth table / state machine that I need to implement in my code (embedded C). I anticipate the behavior specification of this state machine to change in the future, and so I'd like to keep this easily modifiable in the future. My truth table has 4 inputs and 4 outputs. I have it all in an Excel spreadsheet, and if I could just paste that into my code with a little formatting, that would be ideal. I was thinking I would like to access my truth table like so: u8 newState[] = decisionTable[input1][input2][input3][input4]; And then I could access the output values with: setOutputPin( LINE_0, newState[0] ); setOutputPin( LINE_1, newState[1] ); setOutputPin( LINE_2, newState[2] ); setOutputPin( LINE_3, newState[3] ); But in order to get that, it looks like I would have to do a fairly confusing table like so: static u8 decisionTable[][][][][] = {{{{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}, {{ 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }}}, {{{ 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}, {{{{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}, {{{ 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }}, {{ 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}}}; Those nested brackets can be somewhat confusing -- does anyone have a better idea for how I can keep a pretty looking table in my code? Thanks! Edit based on HUAGHAGUAH's answer: Using an amalgamation of everyone's input (thanks -- I wish I could "accept" 3 or 4 of these answers), I think I'm going to try it as a two dimensional array. I'll index into my array using a small bit-shifting macro: #define SM_INPUTS( in0, in1, in2, in3 ) ((in0 << 0) | (in1 << 1) | (in2 << 2) | (in3 << 3)) And that will let my truth table array look like this: static u8 decisionTable[][] = { { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 0, 0 }, { 0, 0, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 1, 1 }, { 0, 1, 0, 1 }, { 1, 1, 1, 1 }}; And I can then access my truth table like so: decisionTable[ SM_INPUTS( line1, line2, line3, line4 ) ] I'll give that a shot and see how it works out. I'll also be replacing the 0's and 1's with more helpful #defines that express what each state means, along with /**/ comments that explain the inputs for each line of outputs. Thanks for the help, everyone!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169  | Next Page >