Search Results

Search found 13692 results on 548 pages for 'bad 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 167/548 | < Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >

  • Bad practice to have models made up of other models?

    - by mattruma
    I have a situation where I have Model A that has a variety of properties. I have discovered that some of the properties are similar across other models. My thought was I could create Model B and Model C and have Model A be a composite with a Model B property and a Model C property. Just trying to determine if this is the best way to handle this situation.

    Read the article

  • Explicit method tables in C# instead of OO - good? bad?

    - by FunctorSalad
    Hi! I hope the title doesn't sound too subjective; I absolutely do not mean to start a debate on OO in general. I'd merely like to discuss the basic pros and cons for different ways of solving the following sort of problem. Let's take this minimal example: you want to express an abstract datatype T with functions that may take T as input, output, or both: f1 : Takes a T, returns an int f2 : Takes a string, returns a T f3 : Takes a T and a double, returns another T I'd like to avoid downcasting and any other dynamic typing. I'd also like to avoid mutation whenever possible. 1: Abstract-class-based attempt abstract class T { abstract int f1(); // We can't have abstract constructors, so the best we can do, as I see it, is: abstract void f2(string s); // The convention would be that you'd replace calls to the original f2 by invocation of the nullary constructor of the implementing type, followed by invocation of f2. f2 would need to have side-effects to be of any use. // f3 is a problem too: abstract T f3(double d); // This doesn't express that the return value is of the *same* type as the object whose method is invoked; it just expresses that the return value is *some* T. } 2: Parametric polymorphism and an auxilliary class (all implementing classes of TImpl will be singleton classes): abstract class TImpl<T> { abstract int f1(T t); abstract T f2(string s); abstract T f3(T t, double d); } We no longer express that some concrete type actually implements our original spec -- an implementation is simply a type Foo for which we happen to have an instance of TImpl. This doesn't seem to be a problem: If you want a function that works on arbitrary implementations, you just do something like: // Say we want to return a Bar given an arbitrary implementation of our abstract type Bar bar<T>(TImpl<T> ti, T t); At this point, one might as well skip inheritance and singletons altogether and use a 3 First-class function table class /* or struct, even */ TDictT<T> { readonly Func<T,int> f1; readonly Func<string,T> f2; readonly Func<T,double,T> f3; TDict( ... ) { this.f1 = f1; this.f2 = f2; this.f3 = f3; } } Bar bar<T>(TDict<T> td; T t); Though I don't see much practical difference between #2 and #3. Example Implementation class MyT { /* raw data structure goes here; this class needn't have any methods */ } // It doesn't matter where we put the following; could be a static method of MyT, or some static class collecting dictionaries static readonly TDict<MyT> MyTDict = new TDict<MyT>( (t) => /* body of f1 goes here */ , // f2 (s) => /* body of f2 goes here */, // f3 (t,d) => /* body of f3 goes here */ ); Thoughts? #3 is unidiomatic, but it seems rather safe and clean. One question is whether there are any performance concerns with it. I don't usually need dynamic dispatch, and I'd prefer if these function bodies get statically inlined in places where the concrete implementing type is known statically. Is #2 better in that regard?

    Read the article

  • iPhone UI: No edit button for UITableView, bad idea?

    - by Nic Hubbard
    I have a UITableViewController which lets the user drill down into different records. On the second level/view, the user can add and edit new records. But, I am not sure what to do, since the back button is on the top left, and I need to put the "Add" button on the top right, so there is no room (keeping to HIG) for the edit button, which would normally go where the back button is. (I am using a tab bar, so can't put it at the bottom.) Do you think that it is logical, to expect users to know to swipe to delete a record? Or, do I need to have an edit button? If I DO need an edit button, where should I put it if I am following HIG?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to have a long initialization method?

    - by Paperflyer
    many people have argued about function size. They say that functions in general should be pretty short. Opinions vary from something like 15 lines to "about one screen", which today is probably about 40-80 lines. Also, functions should always fulfill one task only. However, there is one kind of function that frequently fails in both criteria in my code: initialization functions. For example in an audio application, the audio hardware/API has to be set up, audio data has to be converted to a suitable format and the object state has to properly initialized. These are clearly three different tasks and depending on the API this can easily span more than 50 lines. The thing with init-functions is that they are generally only called once, so there is no need to re-use any of the components. Would you still break them up into several smaller functions would you consider big initialization functions to be ok?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to have a login dialog inside an iframe?

    - by AyKarsi
    We're creating a website where we will be giving out code snippets to our users which they can place on their own websites. These snippets contain a link a javascript include. When clicking the link, an iframe containing the login dialog to our site opens. The user then authenticates inside the iframe, does his work and when he leaves the iframe his session is closed. We've got it working allready and it's very slick. Our main concern though is phishing. The user has absolutely now way of veryifying where the login page is really coming from. On the other hand, phising attacks are also succesfull even if the user can see the fake-url in the address bar. Would you enter your (OpenId) credentials in an iframe? Does anyone know a pattern with which we could minimise the chances of a phishing attack?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use python's getattr extensively?

    - by Wilduck
    I'm creating a shell-like environment. My original method of handleing user input was to use a dictionary mapping commands (strings) to methods of various classes, making use of the fact that functions are first class objects in python. For flexibility's sake (mostly for parsing commands), I'm thinking of changing my setup such that I'm using getattr(command), to grab the method I need and then passing arguments to it at the end of my parser. Another advantage of this approach is not having to update my (currently statically implemented) command dictionary every time I add a new method/command. My question is, will I be taking a hit to the efficiency of my shell? Does it matter how many methods/commands I have? I'm currently looking at 30 some commands, which could eventually double.

    Read the article

  • Website content hosted with Google. Good or bad?

    - by user305052
    I recently decided to host my styles.css and various scripts on Google Docs and link them into my website. I also have all my images hosted through Picasa so that they too will load much faster and consistently across users. My site has most of its traffic from Japan, Africa, and South America, so I assume there will be a performance boost for my users since my server is hosted in Hong Kong. I (in Canada) have measured my load times to be half of what they used to be. Basically it's a free CDN for my personal stuff. I'm not too sure about all of this yet, so here's my question: what are the caveats of this setup?

    Read the article

  • @Resource annotated member not injected - bad code or bug?

    - by Brabster
    I am using an @Resource annotation in a class instantiated in a ServletContextListener's contextInitialized(...) method, but the member is always null. Here's my sample code. Listener: public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent sce) { System.err.println("In contextInitialised"); new ResourceListenerTargetTest().executeMe(); } ResourceListenerTargetTest: @Resource(name="MyJDBCResource") private DataSource source; public void executeMe() { /*try { InitialContext ictx = new InitialContext(); source = (DataSource)ictx.lookup("java:comp/env/MyJDBCResource"); } catch (NamingException e) { e.printStackTrace(); }*/ System.err.println("source is " + source); } If I switch the comments and run the manual resource lookup, it works fine. Should the @Resource annotation work like this, when used in a contextInitalized method? Appserver is WAS 7.0.0.5, if it should work then I guess it's a bug? Can anyone confirm?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to change state inside of an if statement?

    - by Benjamin
    I wrote some code that looks similar to the following: String SKIP_FIRST = "foo"; String SKIP_SECOND = "foo/bar"; int skipFooBarIndex(String[] list){ int index; if (list.length >= (index = 1) && list[0].equals(SKIP_FIRST) || list.length >= (index = 2) && (list[0] + "/" + list[1]).equals(SKIP_SECOND)){ return index; } return 0; } String[] myArray = "foo/bar/apples/peaches/cherries".split("/"); print(skipFooBarIndex(myArray); This changes state inside of the if statement by assigning index. However, my coworkers disliked this very much. Is this a harmful practice? Is there any reason to do it?

    Read the article

  • Is it a bad idea to use the new Dynamic Keyword as a replacement switch statement?

    - by WeNeedAnswers
    I like the new Dynamic keyword and read that it can be used as a replacement visitor pattern. It makes the code more declarative which I prefer. Is it a good idea though to replace all instances of switch on 'Type' with a class that implements dynamic dispatch. class VistorTest { public string DynamicVisit(object obj) { return Visit((dynamic)obj); } private string Visit(string str) { return "a string was called with value " + str; } private string Visit(int value) { return "an int was called with value " + value; } }

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net: HTTP 400 Bad Request error when trying to process http://localhost:5957/http://yahoo.com

    - by mat3
    I'm trying to create something similar to the diggbar : http://digg.com/http://cnn.com I'm using Visual Studio 2010 and Asp Development server. However, I can't get the ASP dev server to handle the request because it contains "http:" in the path. I've tried to create an HTTPModule to rewrite the URL in the BeginRequest , but the event handler doesn't get called when the url is http://localhost:5957/http://yahoo.com. The event handler does get called if the url is http://localhost:5957/http/yahoo.com To summarize http://localhost:5957/http/yahoo.com works http://localhost:5957/http//yahoo.com does not work http://localhost:5957/http://yahoo.com does not work http://localhost:5957/http:/yahoo.com does not work Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Is this a bad version of the Merge Sort algorithm?

    - by SebKom
    merge1(int low, int high, int S[], U[]) { int k = (high - low + 1)/2 for q (from low to high) U[q] = S[q] int j = low int p = low int i = low + k while (j <= low + k - 1) and (i <= high) do { if ( U[j] <= U[i] ) { S[p] := U[j] j := j+1 } else { S[p] := U[i] i := i+1 } p := p+1 } if (j <= low + k - 1) { for q from p to high do { S[q] := U[j] j := j+1 } } } merge_sort1(int low, int high, int S[], U[]) { if low < high { int k := (high - low + 1)/2 merge_sort1(low, low+k-1, S, U) merge_sort1(low+k, high, S, U) merge1(low, high, S, U) } } I am really sorry for the terrible formating, as you can tell I am not a regular visitor here. So, basically, this is on my lecture notes. I find it quite confusing in general but I understand the biggest part of it. What I don't understand is the need of the "if (j <= low + k - 1)" part. It looks like it checks if there are any elements "left" in the left part. Is that even possible when mergesorting?

    Read the article

  • Why is it a bad idea to use ClientLogin for web apps in the Google API?

    - by Onema
    I just picked up the Google API today to allow some users of our site to upload videos to our own organization YouTube account. I Don't want our users to know our user name and password, but rather give them the option if they want to upload videos to youtube or not. If they choose to do it, they check on a check box and hit the submit button. I keep seeing over, and over in the Developers guide that ClientLogin, which to me looks like the best option to implement what I want to do, is not a good idea for user authentication in web applicaitons. The "AuthSub for web applications" doesn't seem to be the best mechanism for what I want to implement! Any ideas on what to do? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Why is it bad practice to use links with the javascript: "protocol"?

    - by zneak
    Hello everyone, In the 1990s, there was a fashion to put Javascript code directly into <a> href attributes, like this: <a href="javascript:alert('Hello world!')">Press me!</a> And then suddenly I stopped to see it. They were all replaced by things like: <a href="#" onclick="alert('Hello world!')">Press me!</a> For a link whose sole purpose is to trigger Javascript code, and has no real href target, why is it encouraged to use the onclick property instead of the href property?

    Read the article

  • Is locking on the requested object a bad idea?

    - by Quick Joe Smith
    Most advice on thread safety involves some variation of the following pattern: public class Thing { private static readonly object padlock = new object(); private string stuff, andNonsense; public string Stuff { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Threadsafe!"; } return this.stuff; } } public string AndNonsense { get { lock (Thing.padlock) { if (this.andNonsense == null) this.andNonsense = "Also threadsafe!"; } return this.andNonsense; } } // Rest of class... } In cases where the get operations are expensive and unrelated, a single locking object is unsuitable because a call to Stuff would block all calls to AndNonsense, degrading performance. And rather than create a lock object for each call, wouldn't it be better to acquire the lock on the member itself (assuming it is not something that implements SyncRoot or somesuch for that purpose? For example: public string Stuff { get { lock (this.stuff) { // Pretend that this is a very expensive operation. if (this.stuff == null) this.stuff = "Still threadsafe and good?"; } return this.stuff; } } Strangely, I have never seen this approach recommended or warned against. Am I missing something obvious?

    Read the article

  • Bad idea to have the same object, have a different side effect after method call.

    - by Nathan W
    Hi all, I'm having a bit of a gesign issue(again). Say I have this Buttonpad object: now this object is a wrapper object over one in a com object. At the moment it has a method on it called CreateInto(IComObject). Now to make a new button pad in the Com Object. You do: ButtonPad pad = new ButtonPad(); pad.Title = "Hello"; // Set some more properties. pad.CreateInto(Cominstance); The createinfo method will excute the right commands to buid the button pad in the com object. After it has been created it any calls against it are foward to the underlying object for change so: pad.Title = "New title"; will call the com object to set the title and also set the internal title variable. Basically any calls before the CreateInfo method only affect the .NET object anything after has the side effect of calling the com object also. I'm not very good at sequence diagrams but here is my attempt to explain whats going on: This doesn't feel good to me, it feels like I'm lying to the user about what the button pad does. I was going to have a object called WrappedButtonPad, which is returned from CreateInto and the user could make calls against that to make changes to the Com Object, but I feel having two objects that almost do the same thing but only differ by names might be even worse. Are these valid designs, or am I right to be worried? How else would you handle a object the can create and query a com object?

    Read the article

  • Is it so bad to have heaps of elements in your DOM?

    - by alex
    I am making a real estate non interactive display for their shop window. I have kicked jCarousel into doing what I want: Add panels per AJAX Towards the end of the current set, go and AJAX some new panels and insert them This works fine, but it appears calling jQuery's remove() on the prior elements cause an ugly bump. I'm not sure if calling hide() will free up any resources, as the element will still exist (and the element will be off screen anyway). I've seen this, and tried carousel.reset() from within a callback. It just clears out all the elements. This will be running on Google Chrome on Windows XP, and will solely by displaying on LCD televisions. I am wondering, if I can't find a reasonable solution to remove the extra DOM elements, will it bring my application to a crawl, or will Chrome do some clever garbage collecting? Or, how would you solve this problem? Thanks

    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 | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >