Search Results

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

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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• '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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Ways to prepare your mind before coding?

  - by kmilo

  Coding is a very attention consuming exercise, how do you prepare yourself to begin a good coding session? I use to be more calm and ready to think in a useful way after reading some insightful new posts from my rss reader.

  Read the article

• Using Remote Web Server to Initialize iPhone App

  - by Chris_K

  My iPhone app relies on a vendor's XML feed to provide data. But that feed is not locked down. The vendor could change the format of the XML at any time, although so far they've promised not to. Since I might want to tell my app to use a different URL for its data source, I'd like to set up a single "Command Central" Web page, on my own server, to direct the app to the correct data source. In other words, each time my app starts, in the background and unseen by the user, it would visit "http://www.myserver.com/iphoneapp_data_sources.xml" to retrieve the URL for retrieving data from my vendor. That way, if my vendor suddenly changes the exact URL or the XML feed that the app needs, I can update that Web page and ensure that all installations of the app are using the correct XML feed. Does anyone have any advice or examples showing this kind of approach? It seems as if this must be a common problem, but so far I haven't found a well-established design pattern that fits it.

  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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• command design pattern usage

  - by sagie

  Hi. I've read 3 descriptions of the command design pattern: wikipedia, dofactory and source making. In all of them, the UML shows a relation between the client to the receiver & the concrete command, but no relation to the invoker. But in all 3 examples the client is the one that initiates the invoker and call its Execute method. I think that should be a relation to the invoker as well. Am I missing somthing in here? Maybe even a basic UML knowladge?

  Read the article

• How should I handle expected errors? eg. "username already exists"

  - by Pheter

  I am struggling to understand how I should design the error handling parts of my code. I recently asked a similar question about how I should go about returning server error codes to the user, eg. 404 errors. I learnt that I should handle the error from within the current part of the application; seem's simple enough. However, what should I do when I can't handle the error from the current link in the chain? For example, I may have a class that is used to manage authentication. One of it's methods could be createUser($username, $password). Within that function, I need to determine if the username already exists. If this is true, how should I alert the calling code about this? Returning null instead of a user object is one way. But how do I then know what caused the error? How should I handle errors in such a way that calling code can easily find out what caused the error? Is there a design pattern commonly used for this kind of situation?

  Read the article

• Is it better to adopt the same technologies used at work to be effective on your home projects ?

  - by systempuntoout

  Is it better to start developing an home project using the same technologies used at work to be more productive and effective? I'm not talking about a simple hello world web page but an home project with all bells and whistles that one day, maybe, you could sell on internet. This dilemma is often subject of flames between me and a friend. He thinks that if you want to make a great home-made project you need to use the same technologies used daily at work staying in the same scope too; for example, a c++ computer game programmer should develope an home-made c++ game. I'm pretty sure that developing using the same technologies used at work can be more productive at beginning, but surely less exciting and stimulating of working with other languages\ides\libraries out of your daily job. What's your opinion about that?

  Read the article

• Wait For Return Key Press Using Java Scanner

  - by Gordon

  What would be the best way to wait for a return key press from the user using the Java Scanner Class? In a command line tool I would like the user to confirm before carrying out an action. Please correct me if there a more standard way of doing this in a command line tool.

  Read the article

• To trigger everytime with .click()?

  - by Dejan.S

  I tried to have a .click() on a <a> to find out it wont trigger every time I click, what it suppose to do is open a dialog. That is not the only problem I would need to pass a value to my jquery to. I just cant figure this one out. I need it to be a <a> because it's gone be in a dropdown menu. Do you got any suggestions? this is the code I use so far $(document).ready(function() { $('a').click(function() { var first = "<iframe style='width: 100%; height: 100%;' src='" + need to put value here + "'</iframe>'"; $('.iframe').html(first); $('#dialog').dialog({ bgiframe: true, modal: true, height: 600, width: 1000 }); }); }); thanks guys

  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

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