Search Results

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

Page 164/348 | < Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to handle recurring execution?

    - by ShaneC
    I am trying to validate the solution I came up for what I think is a fairly typical problem. I have a service running and every 10 minutes it should do something. I've ended up with the following: private bool isRunning = true; public void Execute() { while(isRunning) { if(isRunning) { DoSomething(); m_AutoResetEvent.WaitOne(new Timespan(0, 10, 0)); } } } public void Stop() { isRunning = false; m_AutoResetEvent.Set(); } The immediate potential problems I can see is that I'm not doing any sort of locking around the isRunning modification in Stop() which gets called by another thread but I'm not sure I really need to? The worst that I think could happen is that it runs one extra cycle. Beyond that are there any obvious problems with this code? Is there a better way to solve this problem that I'm unaware of?

    Read the article

  • Should frontend and backend be handled by different controllers?

    - by DR
    In my previous learning projects I always used a single controller, but now I wonder if that is good practice or even always possible. In all RESTful Rails tutorials the controllers have a show, an edit and an index view. If an authorized user is logged on, the edit view becomes available and the index view shows additional data manipulation controls, like a delete button or a link to the edit view. Now I have a Rails application which falls exactly into this pattern, but the index view is not reusable: The normal user sees a flashy index page with lots of pictures, complex layout, no Javascript requirement, ... The Admin user index has a completly different minimalistic design, jQuery table and lots of additional data, ... Now I'm not sure how to handle this case. I can think of the following: Single controller, single view: The view is split into two large blocks/partials using an if statement. Single controller, two views: index and index_admin. Two different controllers: BookController and BookAdminController None of these solutions seems perfect, but for now I'm inclined to use the 3rd option. What's the preferred way to do this?

    Read the article

  • How might a C# programmer approach writing a solution in javascript?

    - by Ben McCormack
    UPDATE: Perhaps this wasn't clear from my original post, but I'm mainly interested in knowing a best practice for how to structure javascript code while building a solution, not simply learning how to use APIs (though that is certainly important). I need to add functionality to a web site and our team has decided to approach the solution using a web service that receives a call from a JSON-formatted AJAX request from within the web site. The web service has been created and works great. Now I have been tasked with writing the javascript/html side of the solution. If I were solving this problem in C#, I would create separate classes for formatting the request, handling the AJAX request/response, parsing the response, and finally inserting the response somehow into the DOM. I would build properties and methods appropriately into each class, doing my best to separate functionality and structure where appropriate. However, I have to solve this problem in javascript. Firstly, how could I approach my solution in javascript in the way I would approach it from C# as described above? Or more importantly, what's a better way to approach structuring code in javascript? Any advice or links to helpful material on the web would be greatly appreciated. NOTE: Though perhaps not immediately relevant to this question, it may be worth noting that we will be using jQuery in our solution.

    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

  • Right design to validate attributes of a class instance

    - by systempuntoout
    Having a simple Python class like this: class Spam(object): __init__(self, description, value): self.description = description self.value = value Which is the correct approach to check these constraints: "description cannot be empty" "value must be greater than zero" Should i: 1.validate data before creating spam object ? 2.check data on __init__ method ? 3.create an is_valid method on Spam class and call it with spam.isValid() ? 4.create an is_valid static method on Spam class and call it with Spam.isValid(description, value) ? 5.check data on setters? 6.... Could you recommend a well designed\Pythonic\not verbose (on class with many attributes)\elegant approach?

    Read the article

  • Benefits of arrays

    - by Vitalii Fedorenko
    As I see it, the advantages of List over array are pretty obvious: Generics provide more precise typing: List<Integer>, List<? extends Number>, List<? super Integer>. List interface has a bunch useful methods: addAll, remove etc. While for arrays all standard operations except get/set must be performed in a procedure manner by passing it to a static method. Collections offer different implementations like ArrayList, LinkedList, unmodifieable and synchronized lists, which can be hidden under common List interface. OOB length control. As disadvantages I can only mention absence of syntactic sugar and runtime type check. At the same time supporting of both structures requires frequent using of asList and toArray methods, which makes code less readable. So I am curious if there are any important benefits of using arrays that I miss.

    Read the article

  • Subclassing and adding data members

    - by Marius
    I have an hierarchy of classes that looks like the following: class Critical { public: Critical(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } virtual ~Critical() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } protected: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor : public Critical { public: CriticalFlavor(int a, int b, int flavor) : Critical(a, b), m_flavor(flavor) { } virtual ~CriticalFlavor() { } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } protected: int m_flavor; }; class CriticalTwist : public Critical { public: CriticalTwist(int a, int b, int twist) : Critical(a, b), m_twist(twist) { } virtual ~CriticalTwist() { } int GetTwist() { return m_twist; } void SetTwist(int twist) { m_twist = twist; } protected: int m_twist; }; The above does not seem right to me in terms of the design and what bothers me the most is the fact that the addition of member variables seems to drive the interface of these classes (the real code that does the above is a little more complex but still embracing the same pattern). That will proliferate when in need for another "Critical" class that just adds some other property. Does this feel right to you? How could I refactor such code? An idea would be to have just a set of interfaces and use composition when it comes to the base object like the following: class Critical { public: virtual int GetA() = 0; virtual int GetB() = 0; virtual void SetA(int a) = 0; virtual void SetB(int b) = 0; }; class CriticalImpl { public: CriticalImpl(int a, int b) : m_a(a), m_b(b) { } ~CriticalImpl() { } int GetA() { return m_a; } int GetB() { return m_b; } void SetA(int a) { m_a = a; } void SetB(int b) { m_b = b; } private: int m_a; int m_b; }; class CriticalFlavor { public: virtual int GetFlavor() = 0; virtual void SetFlavor(int flavor) = 0; }; class CriticalFlavorImpl : public Critical, public CriticalFlavor { public: CriticalFlavorImpl(int a, int b, int flavor) : m_flavor(flavor), m_critical(new CriticalImpl(a, b)) { } ~CriticalFlavorImpl() { delete m_critical; } int GetFlavor() { return m_flavor; } void SetFlavor(int flavor) { m_flavor = flavor; } int GetA() { return m_critical-GetA(); } int GetB() { return m_critical-GetB(); } void SetA(int a) { m_critical-SetA(a); } void SetB(int b) { m_critical-SetB(b); } private: int m_flavor; CriticalImpl* m_critical; };

    Read the article

  • design pattern for related inputs

    - by curiousMo
    My question is a design question : let's say i have a data entry web page with 4 drop down lists, each depending on the previous one, and a bunch of text boxes. ddlCountry (DropDownList) ddlState (DropDownList) ddlCity (DropDownList) ddlBoro (DropDownList) txtAddress (TxtBox) txtZipcode(TxtBox) and an object that represents a datarow with a value for each: countrySeqid stateSeqid citySeqid boroSeqid address zipCode naturally the country, state, city and boro values will be values of primary keys of some lookup tables. when the user chooses to edits that record, i would load it from database and load it into the page. the issue that I have is how to streamline loading the DropDownLists. i have some code that would grab the object,look thru its values and move them to their corresponding input controls in one shot. but in this case i will have to load the ddlCountry with possible values, then assign values, then do the same thing for the rest of the ddls. I guess i am looking for an elegant solution. i am using asp.net, but i think it is irrelevant to the question. i am looking more into a design pattern.

    Read the article

  • How can I determine/use $(this) in js callback script

    - by Rabbott
    I am using Rails and jQuery, making an ajax call initiated by clicking a link. I setup my application.js file to look like the one proposed here and it works great. The problem I'm having is how can I use $(this) in my say.. update.js.erb file to represent the link I clicked? I don't want to have to assign an ID to every one, then recompile that id in the callback script.. EDIT To give a simple example of something similar to what I'm trying to do (and much easier to explain): If a user clicks on a link, that deletes that element from a list, the controller would handle the callback, and the callback (which is in question here) would delete the element I clicked on, so in the callback delete.js.erb would just say $(this).fadeOut(); This is why I want to use $(this) so that I dont have to assign an ID to every element (which would be the end of the world, just more verbose markup) application.js jQuery.ajaxSetup({ 'beforeSend': function(xhr) {xhr.setRequestHeader("Accept", "text/javascript,application/javascript,text/html")} }) function _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, method) { if (jQuery.isFunction(data)) { callback = data; data = {}; } return jQuery.ajax({ type: method, url: url, data: data, success: callback, dataType: type }); } jQuery.extend({ put: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'PUT'); }, delete_: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'DELETE'); } }); jQuery.fn.submitWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('submit', false); this.submit(function() { $.post(this.action, $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via get if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.getWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.get($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via Post if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.postWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.post($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.putWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.put($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.deleteWithAjax = function() { this.removeAttr('onclick'); this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.delete_($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // This will "ajaxify" the links function ajaxLinks(){ $('.ajaxForm').submitWithAjax(); $('a.get').getWithAjax(); $('a.post').postWithAjax(); $('a.put').putWithAjax(); $('a.delete').deleteWithAjax(); } show.html.erb <%= link_to 'Link Title', article_path(a, :sentiment => Article::Sentiment['Neutral']), :class => 'put' %> The combination of the two things will call update.js.erb in rails, the code in that file is used as the callback of the ajax ($.put in this case) update.js.erb // user feedback $("#notice").html('<%= flash[:notice] %>'); // update the background color $(this OR e.target).attr("color", "red");

    Read the article

  • Is Area what I am looking for?

    - by Dejan.S
    Hi I'm new to MVC2 or MVC in general. I'm gone do basic app with a backend. Now I been thinking about how I should do with the folders, views, controllers & routes for the AdminFolder. Now I just saw something called Areas. Is that a way to go for me?

    Read the article

  • Single-Page Web Apps: Client-side datastores & server persistence

    - by fig-gnuton
    How should client-side datastores & persistence be handled in a single-page web application? Global vars vs. DI/IoC: Should datastores be assigned to global variables so any part of the application can access them? Or should they be dependency injected where required? Server persistence: Assuming a datastore's data needn't always be persisted to the server immediately, should the datastore itself handle persistence? If not, then what class should handle persistence and how should the persistence class fit into the client-side architecture overall? Is the datastore considered the model in MVC, or is it something else since it just stores raw data?

    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

  • How to nicely inform to the user that an unknown error has happened?

    - by Jaime Soriano
    There are several guidelines for error reporting, that are usually based on giving to the user useful information when he or she does something wrong, but to give this kind of information you need to be handling the error and know that it can happen. There are also tons of articles about designing 404 error pages. But, what can you do when it's a new, unhandled error provoked by a failure in the shoftware? Are there some guidelines about how to nicely report totally unexpected errors in a web site, as an unexpected error 500? What header message should be shown in that case? something like "Sorry, an unexpected error has ocurred" would be enough? What information should be given? Should it have mechanisms to help to report the failure to developers? Which ones?

    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

  • 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

  • Pattern for version-specific implementations of a Java class

    - by Mike Monkiewicz
    So here's my conundrum. I am programming a tool that needs to work on old versions of our application. I have the code to the application, but can not alter any of the classes. To pull information out of our database, I have a DTO of sorts that is populated by Hibernate. It consumes a data object for version 1.0 of our app, cleverly named DataObject. Below is the DTO class. public class MyDTO { private MyWrapperClass wrapper; public MyDTO(DataObject data) { wrapper = new MyWrapperClass(data); } } The DTO is instantiated through a Hibernate query as follows: select new com.foo.bar.MyDTO(t1.data) from mytable t1 Now, a little logic is needed on top of the data object, so I made a wrapper class for it. Note the DTO stores an instance of the wrapper class, not the original data object. public class MyWrapperClass { private DataObject data; public MyWrapperClass(DataObject data) { this.data = data; } public String doSomethingImportant() { ... version-specific logic ... } } This works well until I need to work on version 2.0 of our application. Now DataObject in the two versions are very similar, but not the same. This resulted in different sub classes of MyWrapperClass, which implement their own version-specific doSomethingImportant(). Still doing okay. But how does myDTO instantiate the appropriate version-specific MyWrapperClass? Hibernate is in turn instantiating MyDTO, so it's not like I can @Autowire a dependency in Spring. I would love to reuse MyDTO (and my dozens of other DTOs) for both versions of the tool, without having to duplicate the class. Don't repeat yourself, and all that. I'm sure there's a very simple pattern I'm missing that would help this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Best practice- How to team-split a django project while still allowing code reusal

    - by Infinity
    I know this sounds kind of vague, but please let me explain- I'm starting work on a brand new project, it will have two main components: "ACME PRODUCT" (think Gmail, Meebo, etc), and "THE SITE" (help, information, marketing stuff, promotional landing pages, etc lots of marketing-induced cruft). So basically the url /acme/* will load stuff in the uber cool ajaxy application, and every other URI will load stuff in the other site. Problem: "THE SITE" component is out of my hands, and will be handled by a consultants team that will work closely with marketing, And I and my team will work solely on the ACME PRODUCT. Question: How to set up the django project in such a way that we can have: Seperate releases. (They can push new marketing pages and functionality without having to worry about the state of our code. Maybe even separate Subversion "projects") Minimize impact (on our product) of whatever flying-unicorns-hocus-pocus the other team codes into the site. Still allow some code reusal. My main concern is that the ACME product needs to be rock solid, and therefore needs to be somewhat isolated of whatever mistakes/code bloopers the consultants make in their marketing side of the site. How have you handled this? Any ideas? 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

< Previous Page | 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171  | Next Page >