Search Results

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

Page 165/348 | < Previous Page | 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172  | Next Page >

  • 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 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

  • 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

  • Extend legacy site with another server-side programming platform best practice

    - by Andrew Florko
    Company I work for have a site developed 6-8 years ago by a team that was enthusiastic enough to use their own private PHP-based CMS. I have to put dynamic data from one intranet company database on this site in one week: 2-3 pages. I contacted company site administrator and she showed me administrative part - CMS allows only to insert html blocks & manage site map (site is deployed on machine that is inside company & fully accessible & upgradeable). I'm not a PHP-guy & I don't want to dive into legacy hardly-who-ever-heard-about CMS engine I also don't want to contact developers team, 'cos I'm not sure they are still present and capable enough to extend this old days site and it'll take too much time anyway. I am about to deploy helper asp.net site on IIS with 2-3 pages required & refer helper site via iframe from present site. New pages will allow to download some dynamic content from present site also. Is it ok and what are the pitfalls with iframe approach?

    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

  • How can I get my business objects layer to use the management layer in their methods?

    - by Tom Pickles
    I have a solution in VS2010 with several projects, each making up a layer within my application. I have business entities which are currently objects with no methods, and I have a management layer which references the business entities layer in it's project. I now think I have designed my application poorly and would like to move methods from helper classes (which are in another layer) into methods I'll create within the business entities themselves. For example I have a VirtualMachine object, which uses a helper class to call a Reboot() method on it which passes the request to the management layer. The static manager class talks to an API that reboots the VM. I want to move the Reboot() method into the VirtualMachine object, but I will need to reference the management layer: public void Reboot() { VMManager.Reboot(this.Name); } So if I add a reference to my management project in my entities project, I get the circular dependency error, which is how it should be. How can I sort this situation out? Do I need to an yet another layer between the entity layer and the management layer? Or, should I just forget it and leave it as it is. The application works ok now, but I am concerned my design isn't particularly OOP centric and I would like to correct this.

    Read the article

  • What types of objects should the ViewModel reference in the MVVM pattern?

    - by Blanthor
    I've seen quite a few examples of MVVM. I can see that the View should reference the ViewModel. I've seen recently an example of a ViewModel referencing a View, which seems wrong to me, as it would result in tighter coupling. Given that ViewModel is often described as an intermediary between the View and the Model, is there more to the ViewModel than a facade to domain objects? I hope I used the term "facade" correctly here.

    Read the article

  • What is the MVC version of this code?

    - by Ian Boyd
    i'm trying to wrap my head around how to enterprise up my code: taking a simple routine and splitting it up into 5 or 6 methods in 3 or 4 classes. i quickly came up three simple examples of code how i currently write it. Could someone please convert these into an MVC/MVP obfuscated version? Example 1: The last name is mandatory. Color the text box red if nothing is entered. Color it green if stuff is entered: private void txtLastname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { //Lastname mandatory. //Color pinkish if nothing entered. Greenish if entered. if (txtLastname.Text.Trim() == "") { //Lastname is required, color pinkish txtLastname.BackColor = ControlBad; } else { //Lastname entered, remove the coloring txtLastname.BackColor = ControlGood; } } Example 2: The first name is optional, but try to get it. We'll add a bluish tint to this "try to get" field: private void txtFirstname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { //Firstname can be blank. //Hint them that they should *try* to get it with a bluish color. //If they do enter stuff: it better be not all spaces. if (txtFirstname.Text == "") { //Nothing there, hint it blue txtFirstname.BackColor = ControlRequired; } else if (txtFirstname.Text.Trim() == "") { //They entered spaces - bad user! txtFirstname.BackColor = ControlBad; } else { //Entered stuff, remove coloring txtFirstname.BackColor = SystemColors.Window; } } Example 3 The age is totally optional. If an age is entered, it better be valid: private void txtAge_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { //Age is optional, but if entered it better be valid int nAge = 0; if (Int32.TryParse(txtAge.Text, out nAge)) { //Valid integer entered if (nAge < 0) { //Negative age? i don't think so txtAge.BackColor = ControlBad; } else { //Valid age entered, remove coloring txtAge.BackColor = SystemColors.Window; } } else { //Whatever is in there: it's *not* a valid integer, if (txtAge.Text == "") { //Blank is okay txtAge.BackColor = SystemColors.Window; } else { //Not a valid age, bad user txtAge.BackColor = ControlBad; } } } Every time i see MVC code, it looks almost like random splitting of code into different methods, classes, and files. i've not been able to determine a reason or pattern to their madness. Without any understanding of they why it's being one some way, it makes no sense. And using the words model, view, controller and presenter, like i'm supposed to know what that means, doesn't help. The model is your data. The view shows data on screen. The controller is used to carry out the users actions And oranges taste orangy. Here's my attempt at splitting things up in order to make the code more difficult to follow. Is this anywhere close to MVC? private void txtFirstname_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { FirstnameTextChangedHandler(sender, e); } private void FirstnameTextChangedHandler(sender, e) { string firstname = GetFirstname(); Color firstnameTextBoxColor = GetFirstnameTextBoxColor(firstname); SetFirstNameTextBoxColor(firstnameTextBoxColor); } private string GetFirstname() { return txtFirstname.Text; } private Color GetFirstnameTextBoxColor(string firstname) { //Firstname can be blank. //Hint them that they should *try* to get it with a bluish color. //If they do enter stuff: it better be not all spaces. if (firstname == "") { //Nothing there, hint it blue return GetControlRequiredColor(); } else if (firstname.Trim() == "") { //They entered spaces - bad user! return GetControlBadColor(); } else { //Entered stuff, remove coloring return GetControlDefaultColor(); } } private Color GetControlRequiredColor() { return ControlRequired; } private Color GetControlBadColor() { return ControlBad; } private Color GetControlGoodColor() { return ControlGood; } //am i doin it rite i've obfuscated the code, but it's still altogether. The next step in the MVC obfuscation, i gather, is to hide the code in 3 or 4 different files. It's that next step that i don't understand. What is the logical separation of which functions are moved into what other classes? Can someone translate my 3 simple examples above into full fledged MVC obfuscation? Edit: Not ASP/ASP.NET/Online. Pretend it's on a desktop, handheld, surface, kiosk. And pretend it's language agnostic.

    Read the article

  • Elegant solution for line-breaks (PHP)

    - by Nimbuz
    $var = "Hi there"."<br/>"."Welcome to my website"."<br/>;" echo $var; Is there an elegant way to handle line-breaks in PHP? I'm not sure about other languages, but C++ has eol so something thats more readable and elegant to use? Thanks

    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

  • 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

  • What's quicker and better to determine if an array key exists in PHP?

    - by alex
    Consider these 2 examples $key = 'jim'; // example 1 if (isset($array[$key])) { doWhatIWant(); } // example 2 if (array_key_exists($key, $array)) { doWhatIWant(); } I'm interested in knowing if either of these are better. I've always used the first, but have seen a lot of people use the second example on this site. So, which is better? Faster? Clearer intent? Update Thanks for the quality answers. I now understand the difference between the 2. A benchmark states that isset() alone is quicker than array_key_exists(). However, if you want the isset() to behave like array_key_exists() it is slower.

    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

  • Command Query Separation validating for retries

    - by Neil Barnwell
    So I'm comfortable with the basic concept of CQS, where you might have a command that writes to one database, and that updates the query database that you read from. However, consider the scenario where you are entering data, and want to prevent duplicates. Using new employee data entry an employee register as an example, working through a pile of application forms to key in the new employees' details: Take top sheet. Key in employee name and unique payroll number to UI. Submit. Put paper in "completed pile". Repeat. How would you now prevent the user from keying in the same payroll number again, say for instance if they get distracted and can't remember whether they've keyed one in already and the "message" hasn't got all the way back to the query db for the user to search?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • why copy and paste codes is dangerous

    - by Yigang Wu
    sometimes, my boss will complain us why we need so long time to implement a feature, actually, the feature has been implemented in other AP before, you just need to copy and paste codes from there. The cost should be low. It's really a hard question, because copy and paste codes is not a easy thing from my point. Do you have any good reason to explain your boss who doesn't know technology?

    Read the article

  • Design pattern to separate messages from actual process.

    - by Manish Gupta
    I am having a C# application to sync data between PC and palm devices. There are codes written like below: showMessage("synchronizing Table1"); Sync(destTable1,sourceTable1); Sync(destTable2,sourceTable2); showMessage("synchronizing Table2"); // more code How do I separate the actual process of synchronizing from displaying message? Which design pattern to follow? Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172  | Next Page >