Search Results

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

Page 167/348 | < Previous Page | 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174  | Next Page >

  • What is MVC and what are the advantages of it?

    - by Teifion
    I found What are mvp and mvc and what is the difference but it didn't really answer this question. I've recently started using MVC because it's part of the framework that myself and my work-partner are going to use. We chose it because it looked easy and separated process from display, are there advantages besides this that we don't know about and could be missing out on? Pros Display and Processing are seperated Cons None so far

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    Read the article

  • Is it weird or strange to make multiple WCF Calls to build a ViewModel before presenting it?

    - by Nate Bross
    Am I doing something wrong if I need code like this in a Controller? Should I be doing something differently? public ActionResult Details(int id) { var svc = new ServiceClient(); var model = new MyViewModel(); model.ObjectA = svc.GetObjectA(id); model.ObjectB = svc.GetObjectB(id); model.ObjectC = svc.GetObjectC(id); return View(model); } The reason I ask, is because I've got Linq-To-Sql on the back end and a WCF Service which exposes functionality through a set of DTOs which are NOT the Linq-To-Sql generated classes and thus do not have the parent/child properties; but in the detail view, I would like to see some of the parent/child data.

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern to cut down on code duplication when subclassing Activities in Android?

    - by Daniel Lew
    I've got a common task that I do with some Activities - downloading data then displaying it. I've got the downloading part down pat; it is, of course, a little tricky due to the possibility of the user changing the orientation or cancelling the Activity before the download is complete, but the code is there. There is enough code handling these cases such that I don't want to have to copy/paste it to each Activity I have, so I thought to create an abstract subclass Activity itself such that it handles a single background download which then launches a method which fills the page with data. This all works. The issue is that, due to single inheritance, I am forced to recreate the exact same class for any other type of Activity - for example, I use Activity, ListActivity and MapActivity. To use the same technique for all three requires three duplicate classes, except each extends a different Activity. Is there a design pattern that can cut down on the code duplication? As it stands, I have saved much duplication already, but it pains me to see the exact same code in three classes just so that they each subclass a different type of Activity.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for debug Asserts during Unit testing

    - by Steve Steiner
    Does heavy use of unit tests discourage the use of debug asserts? It seems like a debug assert firing in the code under test implies the unit test shouldn't exist or the debug assert shouldn't exist. "There can be only one" seems like a reasonable principle. Is this the common practice? Or do you disable your debug asserts when unit testing, so they can be around for integration testing? Edit: I updated 'Assert' to debug assert to distinguish an assert in the code under test from the lines in the unit test that check state after the test has run. Also here is an example that I believe shows the dilema: A unit test passes invalid inputs for a protected function that asserts it's inputs are valid. Should the unit test not exist? It's not a public function. Perhaps checking the inputs would kill perf? Or should the assert not exist? The function is protected not private so it should be checking it's inputs for safety.

    Read the article

  • MapReduce programming system in java-actionscript

    - by eco_bach
    Just finished reading ch23 in the excellent 'Beautiful Code' http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596510046 on Distributed Programming with MapReduce. I understand that MapReduce is a programming system designed for large-scale data processing problems, but I have a hard time getting my head around the basic examples given and how I might apply them in real world situations. Can someone give a simple example of MapReduce implemented using either java, javascript or actionscript?

    Read the article

  • Is there a design pattern that expresses objects (an their operations) in various states?

    - by darren
    Hi I have a design question about the evolution of an object (and its state) after some sequence of methods complete. I'm having trouble articulating what I mean so I may need to clean up the question based on feedback. Consider an object called Classifier. It has the following methods: void initialise() void populateTrainingSet(TrainingSet t) void pupulateTestingSet(TestingSet t) void train() void test() Result predict(Instance i) My problem is that these methods need to be called in a certain order. Futher, some methods are invalid until a previous method is called, and some methods are invalid after a method has been called. For example, it would be invalid to call predict() before test() was called, and it would be invalid to call train() after test() was called. My approach so far has been to maintain a private enum that represents the current stateof the object: private static enum STATE{ NEW, TRAINED, TESTED, READY}; But this seems a bit cloogy. Is there a design pattern for such a problem type? Maybe something related to the template method.

    Read the article

  • JAR files, don't they just bloat and slow Java down?

    - by Josamoto
    Okay, the question might seem dumb, but I'm asking it anyways. After struggling for hours to get a Spring + BlazeDS project up and running, I discovered that I was having problems with my project as a result of not including the right dependencies for Spring etc. There were .jars missing from my WEB-INF/lib folder, yes, silly me. After a while, I managed to get all the .jar files where they belong, and it comes at a whopping 12.5MB at that, and there's more than 30 of them! Which concerns me, but it probably and hopefully shouldn't be concerned. How does Java operate in terms of these JAR files, they do take up quite a bit of hard drive space, taking into account that it's compressed and compiled source code. So that can really quickly populate a lot of RAM and in an instant. My questions are: Does Java load an entire .jar file into memory when say for instance a class in that .jar is instantiated? What about stuff that's in the .jar that never gets used. Do .jars get cached somehow, for optimized application performance? When a single .jar is loaded, I understand that the thing sits in memory and is available across multiple HTTP requests (i.e. for the lifetime of the server instance running), unlike PHP where objects are created on the fly with each request, is this assumption correct? When using Spring, I'm thinking, I had to include all those fiddly .jars, wouldn't I just be better off just using native Java, with say at least and ORM solution like Hibernate? So far, Spring just took extra time configuring, extra hard drive space, extra memory, cpu consumption, so I'm concerned that the framework is going to cost too much application performance just to get for example, IoC implemented with my BlazeDS server. There still has to come ORM, a unit testing framework and bits and pieces here and there. It's just so easy to bloat up a project quickly and irresponsibly easily. Where do I draw the line?

    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

  • How to differentiate between exceptions i can show the user, and ones i can't?

    - by Ian Boyd
    i have some business logic that traps some logically invalid situations, e.g. trying to reverse a transaction that was already reversed. In this case the correct action is to inform the user: Transaction already reversed or Cannot reverse a reversing transaction or You do not have permission to reverse transactions or This transaction is on a session that has already been closed or This transaction is too old to be reversed The question is, how do i communicate these exceptional cases back to the calling code, so they can show the user? Do i create a separate exception for each case: catch (ETransactionAlreadyReversedException) MessageBox.Show('Transaction already reversed') catch (EReversingAReversingTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('Cannot reverse a reversing transaction') catch (ENoPermissionToReverseTranasctionException) MessageBox.Show('You do not have permission to reverse transactions') catch (ECannotReverseTransactionOnAlredyClosedSessionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is on a session that has already been closed') catch (ECannotReverseTooOldTransactionException) MessageBox.Show('This transaction is too old to be reversed') Downside for this is that when there's a new logical case to show the user: Tranasctions created by NSL cannot be reversed i don't simply show the user a message, and instead it leaks out as an unhandled excpetion, when really it should be handled with another MessageBox. The alternative is to create a single exception class: `EReverseTransactionException` With the understanding that any exception of this type is a logical check, that should be handled with a message box: catch (EReverseTransactionException) But it's still understood that any other exceptions, ones that involve, for example, an memory ECC parity error, continue unhandled. In other words, i don't convert all errors that can be thrown by the ReverseTransaction() method into EReverseTransactionException, only ones that are logically invalid cause of the user.

    Read the article

  • Why represent shopping carts and order invoices differently in a domain model?

    - by Todd
    I've built some shopping cart systems in the past, but I always designed them such that the final order invoice is just a shopping cart that has been marked as "purchased". All the logic for adding/removing/changing items in a cart is also the logic for the order. All data is stored in the same tables in the database. But it seems this is not the proper way to design an e-commerce site.. Can someone explain the benefit of separating the shopping cart from invoices in the domain model? It seems to me this would lead to a lot of duplicated code, an extra set of tables in the database, and make it harder to maintain in the event the system need to start accommodating more complicated orders (like specifying selected options for an item which may or may not change the price/availability/shipping time of the order). I'm assuming I just haven't seen the light, as every book and other example I see seems to separate these two seemingly similar concerns -- but I can't find any explanation as to the benefit of doing such! It's also the case in the systems that I design that changes are often made after the initial order is confirmed. It's not uncommon for items to be removed, replaced, or added afterwards (but prior to fulfillment).

    Read the article

  • What is the reason not to use select * ?

    - by Chris Lively
    I've seen a number of people claim that you should specifically name each column you want in your select query. Assuming I'm going to use all of the columns anyway, why would I not use SELECT *? Even considering the question from 9/24, I don't think this is an exact duplicate as I'm approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective. One of our principles is to not optimize before it's time. With that in mind, it seems like using SELECT * should be the preferred method until it is proven to be a resource issue or the schema is pretty much set in stone. Which, as we know, won't occur until development is completely done. That said, is there an overriding issue to not use SELECT *?

    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

  • Beginner Design pattern question (Web Services involved)

    - by zombie
    Hi all ! I am a noob to web services world. I need to develop a login validator module and expose it as a service. I want it to be service independent, i.e I should have the option of exposing it as a SOAP service or REST service in the future. What pattern should I follow ? Sorry if I am unclear in my requirements, I can clarify as per need. Thanks !! Edit : I am using Eclipse as an IDE and Jersey libraries. I am not into any framework, simply using the MVC pattern. I find a lot of difference between SOAP ann REST methods, so I want my methods to be implementation independent - i.e I should be easily able to use my method through a SOAP or REST service call as per need. What should I do for maximum flexibility ?

    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

  • Name the pattern - Create, Set, Execute, Destroy?

    - by Seb Nilsson
    I somewhere heard that the .NET Framework was built around specific pattern, which they tried to uphold as much as possible. var rsa = new RSACryptoServiceProvider(); // Create rsa.ImportParameters(GetParameters()); // Set byte[] encrypted = rsa.Encrypt(data, true); // Execute // Destroyed by garbage-collector Are there any variants of this? What are the general pros and cons?

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • Do you ever make a code change and just test rather than trying to fully understand the change you'v

    - by Clay Nichols
    I'm working in a 12 year old code base which I have been the only developer on. There are times that I'll make a a very small change based on an intuition (or quantum leap in logic ;-). Usually I try to deconstruct that change and make sure I read thoroughly the code. However sometimes, (more and more these days) I just test and make sure it had the effect I wanted. (I'm a pretty thorough tester and would test even if I read the code). This works for me and we have surprisingly (compared to most software I see) few bugs escape into the wild. But what I'm wondering is whether this is just the "art" side of coding. Yes, in an ideal world you would exhaustively read every bit of code that your change modified, but I in practice, if you're confident that it only affects a small section of code, is this a common practice? I can obviously see where this would be a disastrous approach in the hands of a poor programmer. But then, I've seen programmers who ostensibly are reading the code and break stuff left and right (in their own code based which only they have been working on).

    Read the article

  • What is the correct approach to using GWT with persistent objects?

    - by dankilman
    Hi, I am currently working on a simple web application through Google App engine using GWT. It should be noted that this is my first attempt at such a task. I have run into to following problem/dilema: I have a simple Class (getters/setters and nothing more. For the sake of clarity I will refer to this Class as DataHolder) and I want to make it persistent. To do so I have used JDO which required me to add some annotations and more specifically add a Key field to be used as the primary key. The problem is that using the Key class requires me to import com.google.appengine.api.datastore.Key which is ok on the server side, but then I can't use DataHolder on the client side, because GWT doesn't allow it (as far as I know). So I have created a sister Class ClientDataHolder which is almost identical, though it doesn't have all the JDO annotations nor the Key field. Now this actually works but It feels like I'm doing something wrong. Using this approach would require maintaining to separate classes for each entity I wish to have. So my question is: Is there a better way of doing this? Thank you.

    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

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