Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 163/348 | < Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Inheritance in tables - structure problem

    - by Naor
    I have 3 types of users in my system. each type has different information I created the following tables: BaseUser(base_user_id, username, password, additional common data) base_user_id is PK and Identity UserType1(user_id, data related to type1 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType2(user_id, data related to type2 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id UserType3(user_id, data related to type3 only) user_id is PK and FK to base_user_id Now I have relation from each type of user to warehouses table. Users from type1 and type2 should have only warehouse_id and users from type3 should have warehouse_id and customer_id. I thought about this structure: WarehouseOfUser(base_user_id,warehouse_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser WarehouseOfTyp3User(base_user_id,warehouse_id, customer_id) base_user_id is FK to base_user_id in BaseUser The problem is that such structure allows 2 things I want to prevent: 1. add to WarehouseOfTyp3User data of user from type2 or type1. 2. add to WarehouseOfUser data of user from type3. what is the best structure for such case?

    Read the article

  • Have you ever derived a programming solution from nature?

    - by Ryu
    When you step back and look at ... the nature of animals, insects, plants and the problems they have organically solved perhaps even the nature and balance of the universe Have you ever been able to solve a problem by deriving an approach from nature? I've heard of Ant Colony Algorithms being able to optimize supply chain amongst other things. Also Fractal's being the "geometry of nature" have been applied to a wide range of problems. Now that spring is here again and the world is coming back to life I'm wondering if anybody has some experiences they can share. Thanks PS I would recommend watching the "Hunting the Hidden Dimension" Nova episode on fractals.

    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

  • 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

  • DRY way of calling a method in every rails model

    - by Tim
    Along the same lines as this question, I want to call acts_as_reportable inside every model so I can do one-off manual reports in the console in my dev environment (with a dump of the production data). What's the best way to do this? Putting acts_as_reportable if ENV['RAILS_ENV'] == "development" in every model is getting tedious and isn't very DRY at all. Everyone says monkey patching is the devil, but a mixin seems overkill. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Effective communication in a component-based system

    - by Tesserex
    Yes, this is another question about my game engine, which is coming along very nicely, with much thanks to you guys. So, if you watched the video (or didn't), the objects in the game are composed of various components for things like position, sprites, movement, collision, sounds, health, etc. I have several message types defined for "tell" type communication between entities and components, but this only goes so far. There are plenty of times when I just need to ask for something, for example an entity's position. There are dozens of lines in my code that look like this: SomeComponent comp = (SomeComponent)entity.GetComponent(typeof(SomeComponent)); if (comp != null) comp.GetSomething(); I know this is very ugly, and I know that casting smells of improper OO design. But as complex as things are, there doesn't seem to be a better way. I could of course "hard-code" my component types and just have SomeComponent comp = entity.GetSomeComponent(); but that seems like a cop-out, and a bad one. I literally JUST REALIZED, while writing this, after having my code this way for months with no solution, that a generic will help me. SomeComponent comp = entity.GetComponent<SomeComponent>(); Amazing how that works. Anyway, this is still only a semantic improvement. My questions remain. Is this actually that bad? What's a better alternative?

    Read the article

  • pattern to transfer search model to dao

    - by zeroed
    We have a dao as a project (jar file). Clients use its interfaces and factories to operate with database. Using standard CRUD operations, dao allows you to search an entity by some search criteria. What is the best way to represent this criteria? Is transfer object appropriate pattern in this situation? How should client create SearchModel instance? Please, share. Regards.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for passing configuration to each GUI object

    - by Laimoncijus
    Hi, I am writing an application, where I do have few different windows implemented, where each window is a separate class. Now I need somehow to pass a single configuration object to all of them. My GUI is designed in way, where I have one main window, which may create some child windows of its own, and these child windows can have their own childs (so there is no possibility to create all windows in initialization part and feed the config object to all of them from the very beginning)... What would be best practice for sharing this configuration object between them? Always passing via constructor or maybe making it somewhere as final public static and let each window object to access it when needed? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Writing a synchronized thread-safety wrapper for NavigableMap

    - by polygenelubricants
    java.util.Collections currently provide the following utility methods for creating synchronized wrapper for various collection interfaces: synchronizedCollection(Collection<T> c) synchronizedList(List<T> list) synchronizedMap(Map<K,V> m) synchronizedSet(Set<T> s) synchronizedSortedMap(SortedMap<K,V> m) synchronizedSortedSet(SortedSet<T> s) Analogously, it also has 6 unmodifiedXXX overloads. The glaring omission here are the utility methods for NavigableMap<K,V>. It's true that it extends SortedMap, but so does SortedSet extends Set, and Set extends Collection, and Collections have dedicated utility methods for SortedSet and Set. Presumably NavigableMap is a useful abstraction, or else it wouldn't have been there in the first place, and yet there are no utility methods for it. So the questions are: Is there a specific reason why Collections doesn't provide utility methods for NavigableMap? How would you write your own synchronized wrapper for NavigableMap? Glancing at the source code for OpenJDK version of Collections.java seems to suggest that this is just a "mechanical" process Is it true that in general you can add synchronized thread-safetiness feature like this? If it's such a mechanical process, can it be automated? (Eclipse plug-in, etc) Is this code repetition necessary, or could it have been avoided by a different OOP design pattern?

    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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170  | Next Page >