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 >

  • 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

  • Is there anything bad in declaring nested class inside interface in java?

    - by Roman
    I have an interface ProductService with method findByCriteria. This method had a long list of nullable parameters, like productName, maxCost, minCost, producer and so on. I refactored this method by introducing Parameter Object. I created class SearchCriteria and now method signature looks like this: findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria) I thought that instances of SearchCriteria are only created by method callers and are only used inside findByCriteria method, i.e.: void processRequest() { SearchCriteria criteria = new SearchCriteria () .withMaxCost (maxCost) ....... .withProducer (producer); List<Product> products = productService.findByCriteria (criteria); .... } and List<Product> findByCriteria(SearchCriteria criteria) { return doSmthAndReturnResult(criteria.getMaxCost(), criteria.getProducer()); } So I did not want to create a separate public class for SearchCriteria and put it inside ProductServiceInterface: public interface ProductService { List<Product> findByCriteria (SearchCriteria criteria); static class SearchCriteria { ... } } Is there anything bad with this interface? Where whould you place SearchCriteria class?

    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

  • Displaying performance metrics in a modern web app?

    - by Charles
    We're updating our ancient internal PHP application at work. Right now, we gather extensive performance measurements on every pageview, and log them to the database. Additionally, users requested that some of the metrics be displayed at the bottom of the page. This worked out pretty well for us, because the last thing that the application does on every request is include the file containing the HTML footer. The updated parts of the application use an MVC framework and a Dispatch/Request/Response loop. The page footer is no longer the last thing done. In fact, it could very well be the first thing done, before the rest of the page is created. Because we can grab the Response before it's returned to the user, we could try to include placeholders for the performance metrics in the footer and simply replace them with the actual numbers, but this strikes me as a bad idea somehow. How do you handle this in your modern web app? While we're using PHP, I'm curious how it's done in a Ruby/Rails app, and in your favorite Python framework.

    Read the article

  • Where should global Application Settings be stored on Windows 7?

    - by Kerido
    Hi everybody, I'm working hard on making my product work seamlessly on Windows 7. The problem is that there is a small set of global (not user-specific) application settings that all users should be able to change. On previous versions I used HKLM\Software\__Company__\__Product__ for that purpose. This allowed Power Users and Administrators to modify the Registry Key and everything worked correctly. Now that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have this UAC feature, by default, even an Administrator cannot access the Key for writing without elevation. A stupid solution would, of course, mean adding requireAdministrator option into the application manifest. But this is really unprofessional since the product itself is extremely far from administration-related tasks. So I need to stay with asInvoker. Another solution could mean programmatic elevation during moments when write access to the Registry Key is required. Let alone the fact that I don't know how to implement that, it's pretty awkward also. It interferes with normal user experience so much that I would hardly consider it an option. What I know should be relatively easy to accomplish is adding write access to the specified Registry Key during installation. I created a separate question for that. This also very similar to accessing a shared file for storing the settings. My feeling is that there must be a way to accomplish what I need, in a way that is secure, straightforward and compatible with all OS'es. Any ideas?

    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

  • What's the preferred way to use helper methods in Ruby?

    - by DR
    Disclaimer: Although I'm asking in context of a Rails application, I'm not talking about Rails helpers (i.e. view helpers) Let's say I have a helper method/function: def dispatch_job(job = {}) #Do something end Now I want to use this from several places (mostly controllers, but also a few BackgrounDRb workers) What's the preferred way to do this? I can think of two possibilities: 1. Use a class and make the helper a static method: class MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker def run MyHelper.dispatch_job(...) end end 2. Use a module and include the method into whatever class I need this functionality module MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker include MyHelper def run dispatch_job(...) end end 3. Other possibilities I don't know yet ... The first one is more Java-like, but I'm not sure if the second one is really an appropriate use of Ruby's modules.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern: polymorphisim for list of objects

    - by ziang
    Suppose I have a class A, and A1, A2 inherits from A. There are 2 functions: List<A1> getListA1(){...} List<A2> getListA2(){...} Now I want to do something similar to both A1 and A2 in another function public void process(List<A>){...} If I want to pass the instance of either ListA1 or ListA2, of course the types doesn't match because the compiler doesn't allow the coercion from List< A1 to List< A. I can't do something like this: List<A1> listA1 = getListA1(); List<A> newList = (List<A>)listA1; //this is not allowed. So what is the best approach to the process()? Is there any way to do it in a universal way rather than write the similar code to both List and 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

  • Where to store global variables like file paths in java ?

    - by Jules Olléon
    In my application I use some icons. Where should I store the path of the directory containing those icons ? The icons are used in different classes so it doesn't really make sense to store them in one of those classes in particular. I read that global variables are evil, but is it acceptable to use a class (eg Commons) containing only public static final fields to store this king of data ? What solution is used in professional applications ?

    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

  • Searching for the right pattern to handle login data

    - by stevebot
    Hi all, I'm working on a controller that handles logins for a Web app. These logins will come from multiple clients but will all contain the same data. However, depending on the client, this data will be interpreted into common entities for our webapp differently. For instance, we have a user code that gets sent in, and in one case we may use the first four digits of the code, and in another case 12 digits of the code to map to a field on a User entity. Instead of handling this all in the controller and having big nasty if blocks of logic, I would like to use a pattern to handle how this information gets ingested into our application. What are your opinions?

    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

  • 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

  • Should I use a modified singleton design pattern that only allows one reference to its instance?

    - by Graham
    Hi, I have a class that would normally just generate factory objects, however this class should only used once throughout the program in once specifix place. What is the best design pattern to use in this instance? I throught that having a modified singleton design which only allows one reference to instance throughout the program would be the correct way to go. So only the first call to getInstance() returns the factory library. Is this a good or bad idea? Have I missed out another fundermental design pattern for solving this problem? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for using Wcf service by silverlight?

    - by bonefisher
    How would you structure the code for calling a wcf service in silverlight application? Using only-once instanciated wcf service-proxy (aka singleton) and using it across the whole SL app? If so, how did you solve the unsubscribing controls from ws-call-completed event? or creating the wcf service-proxy for each ws-call? Where do you close the proxy then?

    Read the article

  • Use the serialVersionUID or suppress warnings?

    - by Okami
    Dear all, first thing to note is the serialVersionUID of a class implementing Interface Serializable is not in question. What if we create a class that for example extends HttpServlet? It also should have a serialVersionUID. If someone knows that this object will never be serialized should he define it or add an annotation to suppress those warnings? What would you do and why? Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Okami

    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

  • Passing ViewModel for backbone.js from MVC3 Server-Side

    - by Roman
    In ASP.NET MVC there is Model, View and Controller. MODEL represents entities which are stored in database and essentially is all the data used in a application (for example, generated by EntityFramework, "DB First" approach). Not all data from model you want to show in the view (for example, hashs of passwords). So you create VIEW MODEL, each for every strongly-typed-razor-view you have in application. Like this: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Web; namespace MyProject.ViewModels.SomeController.SomeAction { public class ViewModel { public ViewModel() { Entities1 = new List<ViewEntity1>(); Entities2 = new List<ViewEntity2>(); } public List<ViewEntity1> Entities1 { get; set; } public List<ViewEntity2> Entities2 { get; set; } } public class ViewEntity1 { //some properties from original DB-entity you want to show } public class ViewEntity2 { } } When you create complex client-side interfaces (I do), you use some pattern for javascript on client, MVC or MVVM (I know only these). So, with MVC on client you have another model (Backbone.Model for example), which is third model in application. It is a bit much. Why don`t we use the same ViewModel model on a client (in backbone.js or another framework)? Is there a way to transfer CS-coded model to JS-coded? Like in MVVM pattern, with knockout.js, when you can do like this: in SomeAction.cshtml: <div style="display: none;" id="view_model">@Json.Encode(Model)</div> after that in Javascript-code var ViewModel = ko.mapping.fromJSON($("#view_model").get(0).innerHTML); now you can extend your ViewModel with some actions, event handlers, etc: ko.utils.extend(ViewModel, { some_function: function () { //some code } }); So, we are not building the same view model on the client again, we are transferring existing view model from server. At least, data. But knockout.js is not suitable for me, you can`t build complex UI with it, it is just data-binding. I need something more structural, like backbone.js. The only way to build ViewModel for backbone.js I can see now is re-writing same ViewModel in JS from server with hands. Is there any ways to transfer it from server? To reuse the same viewmodel on server view and client view?

    Read the article

  • How to face observable object containing an observable field

    - by iseek
    Hello, I need a hint concerning MVC and Observer-Pattern. For example a model contains the classes "Address" and "Person". The Address class contains the fields street:String, zipcode:String, location:String. Whereas the Person class contains the fields name:String, firstName:String, address:Address. My approach so far looks something like this: Both, Address and Person are observable. If one of their setters is being called, I validate whether the current value and new value differ. Only in this case an update event is fired. The event contains the source, the name of the changed field, the old and the new value. The class for the view contains text fields to display and edit the information of a person: name, firstname, street, zipcode, location. It knows the Person model and is an subscribed observer for the person. So it gets the update events from the person object. My questions concerns the address field from type Address in the person class, since an address is observable on its own. If the view gets an update event from person when a new address has been set, I can update all of the address related fields in the view. But what if a field of the address changes? Should the view also register for update events from the address? Any hints about common design approaches would be appreciated. Greetings.

    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

  • 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

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