Search Results

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

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

  • To "null" or not to "null" my class's attributes

    - by Helper Method
    When I write a class in Java, I like to initialize the attributes which are set to a default value directly and attributes which are set by the caller in the constructor, something like this: public class Stack<E> { private List<E> list; private size = 0; public Stack(int initialCapacity) { list = new ArrayList<E>(initialCapacity); } // remainder omitted } Now suppose I have a Tree class: public class Tree<E> { private Node<E> root = null; // no constructor needed, remainder omitted } Shall I set the root attribute to null, to mark that it is set to null by default, or omit the null value?

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice when coding math class/functions ?

    - by Isaac Clarke
    Introductory note : I voluntarily chose a wide subject. You know that quote about learning a cat to fish, that's it. I don't need an answer to my question, I need an explanation and advice. I know you guys are good at this ;) Hi guys, I'm currently implementing some algorithms into an existing program. Long story short, I created a new class, "Adder". An Adder is a member of another class representing the physical object actually doing the calculus , which calls adder.calc() with its parameters (merely a list of objects to do the maths on). To do these maths, I need some parameters, which do not exist outside of the class (but can be set, see below). They're neither config parameters nor members of other classes. These parameters are D1 and D2, distances, and three arrays of fixed size : alpha, beta, delta. I know some of you are more comfortable reading code than reading text so here you go : class Adder { public: Adder(); virtual Adder::~Adder(); void set( float d1, float d2 ); void set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] ); // Snipped prototypes float calc( List& ... ); // ... inline float get_d1() { return d1_ ;}; inline float get_d2() { return d2_ ;}; private: float d1_; float d2_; int alpha_[N_MAX]; // A #define N_MAX is done elsewhere int beta_[N_MAX]; int delta_[N_MAX]; }; Since this object is used as a member of another class, it is declared in a *.h : private: Adder adder_; By doing that, I couldn't initialize the arrays (alpha/beta/delta) directly in the constructor ( int T[3] = { 1, 2, 3 }; ), without having to iterate throughout the three arrays. I thought of putting them in static const, but I don't think that's the proper way of solving such problems. My second guess was to use the constructor to initialize the arrays Adder::Adder() { int alpha[N_MAX] = { 0, -60, -120, 180, 120, 60 }; int beta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 }; int delta[N_MAX] = { 0, 0, 180, 180, 180, 0 }; set( 2.5, 0, alpha, beta, delta ); } void Adder::set( float d1, float d2 ) { if (d1 > 0) d1_ = d1; if (d2 > 0) d2_ = d2; } void Adder::set( float d1, float d2, int alpha[N_MAX], int beta[N_MAX], int delta[N_MAX] ) { set( d1, d2 ); for (int i = 0; i < N_MAX; ++i) { alpha_[i] = alpha[i]; beta_[i] = beta[i]; delta_[i] = delta[i]; } } My question is : Would it be better to use another function - init() - which would initialize arrays ? Or is there a better way of doing that ? My bonus question is : Did you see some mistakes or bad practice along the way ?

    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

  • 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

  • Lock thread using somthing other than a object

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

    Read the article

  • Why is short project lifetime and other situation-specific reasons used to excuse crappy code? [clos

    - by sharptooth
    Every now and then (including on SO) people say things implying that "if the project is short lived you can leave obvious defects there" or "that memory leak only accounts for 100 bytes per whole program lifetime and could be left". Now in my practice I always reuse company-owned code to the greatest extent I can. Like if I need something and I can find it in the company codebase I take it from there and reuse or adapt. This means that any crappy code will be reused as well and I might notice or not notice defects therein. So the defect in some "test we only need for a month" can slip into a proram we ship to customers. And a leak that "only accounted for 100 bytes per lifetime" now could account for 100 bytes 10 times per second in a server application intended to run for months. That's why I don't understand why excuses like that are offered. Is our compamy the only one having a source control? Or are we the only company that requires writing human-readable code? Could anyone shed a light on why people seriously offer such excuses?

    Read the article

  • TCP Message Structure with XML

    - by metdos
    Hello Everybody, I'm sending messages over TCP/IP and on the other side I parse TCP message.For example this is one of the sent messages. $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&requestId=123&username=metdos&password=123)$EDKMSG Clarification: $DKMSG( //Start )$EDKMSG //End requestType //Parameter REQUEST_LOGIN //Parameter Value Now I also want to add an Xml file to my message. I'm considering this option: $DKMSG(requestType=REQUEST_LOGIN&xmlData= <Item id="56D@MIT" type="SIGNAL"> <Label> <Text>56D</Text> <X1>10</X1> <Y1>40</Y1> <RotateAngle>90</RotateAngle> </Label> <X1>0</X1> <Y1>20</Y1> <Width>35</Width> <Height>10</Height> <Source>sgs3lr</Source> </Item> )$EDKMSG There are problems with this way: 1-)It doesn't seem right to me. 2-)I have to handle delimeter "=" with much more care or I need to change it in parameters. What are your suggestions, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Am I using too much jQuery? When am I crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately I found myself using jQuery and JavaScript a lot, often to do the same things that I did before using CSS. For example, I alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using JavaScript/jQuery. Is this acceptable? Or should I keep using CSS for these kinds of things? So the real question is: When I'm using too much jQuery? How can I understand when I'm crossing the line?

    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

  • 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

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

    - by whatispunk
    I love auto-implemented properties in C# but lately there's been this elephant standing in my cubicle and I don't know what to do with him. If I use auto-implemented properties (hereafter "aip") then I no longer have a private backing field to use internally. This is fine because the aip has no side-effects. But what if later on I need to add some extra processing in the get or set? Now I need to create a backing-field so I can expand my getters and setters. This is fine for external code using the class, because they won't notice the difference. But now all of the internal references to the aip are going to invoke these side-effects when they access the property. Now all internal access to the once aip must be refactored to use the backing-field. So my question is, what do most of you do? Do you use auto-implemented properties or do you prefer to always use a backing-field? What do you think about properties with side-effects?

    Read the article

  • Detecting similar words among n text documents

    - by javanes
    Hi; I have n documents and want to find common words that are included in these documents. For example I want to say (n-3) documents include the word "web". Certainly I can do this by basic data structures but there maybe efficient algorithm or a way to handle same words with different suffix. Is there any algorithm for such purposes? I am unfamiliar with datamining world. In general manner is there a term used for efforts of finding similarities between different documents? If there is then I will make my research easily. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where should my "filtering" logic reside with Linq-2-SQL and ASP.NET-MVC in View or Controller?

    - by Nate Bross
    I have a main Table, with several "child" tables. TableA and TableAChild1 and TableAChild2. I have a view which shows the information in TableA, and then has two columns of all items in TableAChild1 and TableAChild2 respectivly, they are rendered with Partial views. Both child tables have a bit field for VisibleToAll, and depending on user role, I'd like to either display all related rows, or related rows where VisibleToAll = true. This code, feels like it should be in the controller, but I'm not sure how it would look, because as it stands, the controller (limmited version) looks like this: return View("TableADetailView", repos.GetTableA(id)); Would something like this be even work, and would it be bad what if my DataContext gets submitted, would that delete all the rows that have VisibleToAll == false? var tblA = repos.GetTableA(id); tblA.TableAChild1 = tblA.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); tblA.TableAChild2 = tblA.TableAChild2.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); return View("TableADetailView", tblA); It would also be simple to add that logic to the RendarPartial call from the main view: <% Html.RenderPartial("TableAChild1", Model.TableAChild1.Where(tmp => tmp.VisibleToAll == true); %>

    Read the article

  • How to "wrap" implementation in C#

    - by igor
    Hello, I have these classes in C# (.NET Framework 3.5) described below: public class Base { public int State {get; set;} public virtual int Method1(){} public virtual string Method2(){} ... public virtual void Method10(){} } public class B: Base { // some implementation } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; public class Proxy(B b) { _b = b; } public override int Method1() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method1(); else return base.Method1(); } public override string Method2() { if (State == Running) return _b.Method2(); else return base.Method2(); } public override void Method10() { if (State == Running) _b.Method10(); else base.Method10(); } } I want to get something this: public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) // may be some other rule return _b; else return base; // compile error } and my Proxy's implementation will be: public class Proxy: Base { ... public override int Method1() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method1(); } public override string Method2() { return GetStateDependentImplementation().Method2(); } ... } Of course, I can do this (aggregation of base implementation): public RepeaterOfBase: Base // no any overrides, just inheritance { } public class Proxy: Base { private B _b; private RepeaterOfBase _Base; public class Proxy(B b, RepeaterOfBase aBase) { _b = b; _base = aBase; } } ... public Base GetStateDependentImplementation() { if (State == Running) return _b; else return _Base; } ... But instance of Base class is very huge and I have to avoid to have other additional copy in memory. So I have to simplify my code have to "wrap" implementation have to avoid a code duplication have to avoid aggregation of any additional instance of Base class (duplication) Is it possible to reach these goals?

    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

  • C# Linq: Can you merge DataContexts?

    - by Andreas Grech
    Say I have one database, and this database has a set of tables that are general to all Clients and some tables that are specific to certain clients. Now what I have in mind is creating a primary DataContext that includes only the tables that are general to all the clients, and then create separate DataContexts that contain only the tables that are specific to the client. Is there a way to kind of "merge" DataContexts so that it becomes one context? So for Client A, I need one DataContext that includes both the general tables and also the tables for that specific client (retrieved from two different DataContexts) ? [Update] What I think I can do is, from the Partial Class of the DataContext instead of letting my DataContext inherit from DataContext I make it inherit from MyDataContext; that way, the tables from MyDataContext and the other DataContext will be available in one DataContext class. What do you think about this approach? Of course with something like this you can only merge two datacontexts at once though...

    Read the article

  • C++ Headers/Source Files

    - by incrediman
    (Duplicate of C++ Code in Header Files) What is the standard way to split up C++ classes between header and source files? Am I supposed to put everything in the header file? Or should I declare the classes in the header file and define them in a .cpp file (source file)? Sorry if I'm shaky on the terminology here (declare, define, etc). So what's the standard?

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • Should I create subclass NSManagedObject or not?

    - by TP
    Hi, I have spent a few days learning and writing NSCoding and finally got it working. However, it took very long to archive and unarchive the (quite complex) object graph, which is unacceptable. After searching the internet for some time, I think the better way is to use core data. Do you recommend that 1) I should rewrite all my classes as subclasses of NSManagedObject or 2) should I create an instance variable of NSManagedObject in each of my class so that any changes to the class also updates its core data representation? Doing either way will need significant changes to the exiting classes and I think I have to update lots of unit test cases as well if it changes the way the classes are initialized. What do you recommend? I really don't want to head to the wrong approach again... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Arguments to convince to switch from CVS to SVN

    - by ereOn
    Hi, The UNIX department of my company currently uses CVS as source-version control system. They use it in a very strange way: different repositories for development/testing/production code (for the same project), no one tags anything, weird directory architecture, and so on. The system has been set for ages but now, I have an opportunity to organize a meeting where I have to suggest changes. I'd like to make them change from CVS to SVN (Mercurial or Git might be even better, however I can't really recommand using a system I don't know well, and switching to SVN will already be a great step forward). I don't have much experience with CVS so I can't compare them efficiently: I just know it doesn't support atomic operations and that it is deprecated. What killer arguments would you use to convince my collegues to do the switch ? Thank you very much.

    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

  • '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

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