Search Results

Search found 17731 results on 710 pages for 'programming practices'.

Page 168/710 | < Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >

  • Abstract Factory Using Generics: Is Explicitly Converting a Specified Type to Generic a Bad Practice

    - by Merritt
    The question's title says it all. I like how it fits into the rest of my code, but does it smell? public interface IFoo<T> { T Bar { get; set; } } public class StringFoo : IFoo<string> { public string Bar { get; set; } } public static class FooFactory { public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>() { if (typeof(T) == typeof(string)) { return new StringFoo() as IFoo<T>; } throw new NotImplementedException(); } } UPDATE: this is sort of a duplicate of Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

    Read the article

  • R: disentangling scopes

    - by rescdsk
    Hi, Right now, in my R project, I have functions1.R with doFoo() and doBar(), functions2.R with other functions, and main.R with the main program in it, which first does source('functions1.R'); source('functions2.R'), and then calls the other functions. I've been starting the program from the R GUI in Mac OS X, with source('main.R'). This is fine the first time, but after that, the variables that were defined the first time through the program are defined for the second time functions*.R are sourced, and so the functions get a whole bunch of extra variables defined. I don't want that! I want an "undefined variable" error when my function uses a variable it shouldn't! Twice this has given me very late nights of debugging! So how do other people deal with this sort of problem? Is there something like source(), but that makes an independent namespace that doesn't fall through to the main one? Making a package seems like one solution, but it seems like a big pain in the butt compared to e.g. Python, where a source file is automatically a separate namespace. Any tips? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • send credentials with url, possible?

    - by Dejan.S
    Hi. I got a web service that I protect with basic authentication and use ssl. to make it easy for the clients that are gone use this web service I want to skip the 401 and send the credentials with the url (I would like so the customer can access the web service with url from their code / web app), question is this possible? I know about headers but a lot of the clients gone use this do not got the proper developing team to do code. thanks

    Read the article

  • Buddy List: Relational Database Table Design

    - by huntaub
    So, the modern concept of the buddy list: Let's say we have a table called Person. Now, that Person needs to have many buddies (of which each buddy is also in the person class). The most obvious way to construct a relationship would be through a join table. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 3 6 But, when a user wants to see their buddy list, the program would have to check the column 'person1_id' and 'person2_id' to find all of their buddies. Is this the appropriate way to implement this kind of table, or would it be better to add the record twice.. i.e. buddyID person1_id person2_id 0 1 2 1 2 1 So that only one column has to be searched. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • C# - Removing event handlers - FormClosing event or Dispose() method

    - by Andy
    Suppose I have a form opened via the .ShowDialog() method. At some point I attach some event handlers to some controls on the form. e.g. // Attach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click += new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); When the form closes, I need to remove these handlers, right? At present, I am doing this when the FormClosing event is fired. e.g. private void Foo_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e) { // Detach radio button event handlers. this.rbLevel1.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel2.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); this.rbLevel3.Click -= new EventHandler(this.RadioButton_CheckedChanged); } However, I have seen some examples where handlers are removed in the Dispose() method. Is there a 'best-practice' way of doing this? (Using C#, Winforms, .NET 2.0) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • "do it all" page structure and things to watch out for?

    - by Andrew Heath
    I'm still getting my feet wet in PHP (my 1st language) and I've reached the competency level where I can code one page that handles all sorts of different related requests. They generally have a structure like this: (psuedo code) <?php include 'include/functions.php'; IF authorized IF submit (add data) ELSE IF update (update data) ELSE IF list (show special data) ELSE IF tab switch (show new area) ELSE display vanilla (show default) ELSE "must be registered/logged-in" ?> <HTML> // snip <?php echo $output; ?> // snip </HTML> and it all works nicely, and quite quickly which is cool. But I'm still sorta feeling my way in the dark... and would like some input from the pros regarding this type of page design... is it a good long-term structure? (it seems easily expanded...) are there security risks particular to this design? are there corners I should avoid painting myself into? Just curious about what lies ahead, really...

    Read the article

  • Alternatives to using web.config to store settings (for complex solutions)

    - by Brian MacKay
    In our web applications, we seperate our Data Access Layers out into their own projects. This creates some problems related to settings. Because the DAL will eventually need to be consumed from perhaps more than one application, web.config does not seem like a good place to keep the connection strings and some of the other DAL-related settings. To solve this, on some of our recent projects we introduced a third project just for settings. We put the setting in a system of .Setting files... With a simple wrapper, the ability to have different settings for various enviroments (Dev, QA, Staging, Production, etc) was easy to achieve. The only problem there is that the settings project (including the .Settings class) compiles into an assembly, so you can't change it without doing a build/deployment, and some of our customers want to be able to configure their projects without Visual Studio. So, is there a best practice for this? I have that sense that I'm reinventing the wheel. Some solutions such as storing settings in a fixed directory on the server in, say, our own XML format occurred to us. But again, I would rather avoid having to re-create encryption for sensitive values and so on. And I would rather keep the solution self-contained if possible. EDIT: The original question did not contain the really penetrating reason that we can't (I think) use web.config ... That puts a few (very good) answers out of context, my bad.

    Read the article

  • When should I implement IDisposable?

    - by Bobby
    What is the best practice for when to implement IDisposable? Is the best rule of thumb to implement it if you have one managed object in the class, or does it depend if the object was created in the class or just passed in? Should I also do it for classes with no managed objects at all?

    Read the article

  • Java 'Prototype' pattern - new vs clone vs class.newInstance

    - by Guillaume
    In my project there are some 'Prototype' factories that create instances by cloning a final private instance. The author of those factories says that this pattern provides better performance than calling 'new' operator. Using google to get some clues about that, I've found nothing really relevant about that. Here is a small excerpt found in a javdoc from an unknown project javdoc from an unknown project Sadly, clone() is rather slower than calling new. However it is a lot faster than calling java.lang.Class.newInstance(), and somewhat faster than rolling our own "cloner" method. For me it's looking like an old best practice of the java 1.1 time. Does someone know more about this ? Is this a good practice to use that with 'modern' jvm ?

    Read the article

  • How to include associative table information and still retain strong typing

    - by mwright
    I am using LINQ to SQL to create strongly typed objects in my project. Let's say I have an object that is represented by a database table. This object has a "Current State" that is kept in an associative table. I would like to make a single db call where I pull back the two tables joined but am unsure how I should be populating that information into some sort of object to preserve strong typing within my model so that the view using the information can just consume the information from the objects. I looked into creating a view model for this but it doesn't seem to quite fit. Am I thinking about this in the wrong way? What information can I include to help clarify my problem? Other details that may or may not be important: It's an MVC project....

    Read the article

  • Code Analysis - Treat as Error

    - by Brian Schmitt
    Looking to enable the "Enable code Analysis on Build" feature in Visual Studio. Obviously the Rules are a best practice, and I am working with an existing code base that currently fails many of the rules. I am looking for input as to which rules are the most egregious and should be treated as an Error.

    Read the article

  • How would you organize this Javascript?

    - by Anurag
    How do you usually organize complex web applications that are extremely rich on the client side. I have created a contrived example to indicate the kind of mess it's easy to get into if things are not managed well for big apps. Feel free to modify/extend this example as you wish - http://jsfiddle.net/NHyLC/1/ The example basically mirrors part of the comment posting on SO, and follows the following rules: Must have 15 characters minimum, after multiple spaces are trimmed out to one. If Add Comment is clicked, but the size is less than 15 after removing multiple spaces, then show a popup with the error. Indicate amount of characters remaining and summarize with color coding. Gray indicates a small comment, brown indicates a medium comment, orange a large comment, and red a comment overflow. One comment can only be submitted every 15 seconds. If comment is submitted too soon, show a popup with appropriate error message. A couple of issues I noticed with this example. This should ideally be a widget or some sort of packaged functionality. Things like a comment per 15 seconds, and minimum 15 character comment belong to some application wide policies rather than being embedded inside each widget. Too many hard-coded values. No code organization. Model, Views, Controllers are all bundled together. Not that MVC is the only approach for organizing rich client side web applications, but there is none in this example. How would you go about cleaning this up? Applying a little MVC/MVP along the way? Here's some of the relevant functions, but it will make more sense if you saw the entire code on jsfiddle: /** * Handle comment change. * Update character count. * Indicate progress */ function handleCommentUpdate(comment) { var status = $('.comment-status'); status.text(getStatusText(comment)); status.removeClass('mild spicy hot sizzling'); status.addClass(getStatusClass(comment)); } /** * Is the comment valid for submission */ function commentSubmittable(comment) { var notTooSoon = !isTooSoon(); var notEmpty = !isEmpty(comment); var hasEnoughCharacters = !isTooShort(comment); return notTooSoon && notEmpty && hasEnoughCharacters; } // submit comment $('.add-comment').click(function() { var comment = $('.comment-box').val(); // submit comment, fake ajax call if(commentSubmittable(comment)) { .. } // show a popup if comment is mostly spaces if(isTooShort(comment)) { if(comment.length < 15) { // blink status message } else { popup("Comment must be at least 15 characters in length."); } } // show a popup is comment submitted too soon else if(isTooSoon()) { popup("Only 1 comment allowed per 15 seconds."); } });

    Read the article

  • learning to type - tips for programmers?

    - by OrbMan
    After hunting and pecking for about 35 years, I have decided to learn to type. I am learning QWERTY and have learned about 2/3 of the letters so far. While learning, I have noticed how asymmeterical the keyboard is, which really bothers me. (I will probably switch to a symmetrical keyboard eventually, but for now am trying to do everything as standard and "correct" as possible.) Although I am not there yet in my lessons, it seems that many of the keys I am going to use as a C# web developer are supposed to be typed by the pinky of my right hand. Are there any typing patterns you have developed that are more ergonomic (or faster) when typing large volumes of code rife with braces, colons, semi-colons and quotes? Or, should I just accept the fact that every other key is going to be hit with my right pinky? It is not that speed is such a huge concern, as much as that it seems so inefficient to rely on one finger so much... As an example, some of the conventions I use as a hunt and pecker, like typing open and close braces right away with my index and middle finger, and then hitting the left arrow key to fill in the inner content, don't seem to work as well with just a pinky. What are some typing patterns using a standard QWERTY keyboard that work really well for you as a programmer?

    Read the article

  • Can per-user randomized salts be replaced with iterative hashing?

    - by Chas Emerick
    In the process of building what I'd like to hope is a properly-architected authentication mechanism, I've come across a lot of materials that specify that: user passwords must be salted the salt used should be sufficiently random and generated per-user ...therefore, the salt must be stored with the user record in order to support verification of the user password I wholeheartedly agree with the first and second points, but it seems like there's an easy workaround for the latter. Instead of doing the equivalent of (pseudocode here): salt = random(); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword, salt); Why not use the hash of the username as the salt? This yields a domain of salts that is well-distributed, (roughly) random, and each individual salt is as complex as your salt function provides for. Even better, you don't have to store the salt in the database -- just regenerate it at authentication-time. More pseudocode: salt = hash(username); hashedPassword = hash(salt . password); storeUserRecord(username, hashedPassword); (Of course, hash in the examples above should be something reasonable, like SHA-512, or some other strong hash.) This seems reasonable to me given what (little) I know of crypto, but the fact that it's a simplification over widely-recommended practice makes me wonder whether there's some obvious reason I've gone astray that I'm not aware of.

    Read the article

  • Managing string resources in a Java application - singleton?

    - by Joe Attardi
    I seek a solution to the age-old problem of managing string resources. My current implementation seems to work well, but it depends on using singletons, and I know how often singletons can be maligned. The resource manager class has a singleton instance that handles lookups in the ResourceBundle, and you use it like so: MessageResources mr = MessageResources.getMessageResources(); // returns singleton instance ... JLabel helloLabel = new JLabel(mr.getString("label.hello")); Is this an appropriate use of a singleton? Is there some better, more universally used approach that I'm not aware of? I understand that this is probably a bit subjective, but any feedback I can get would be appreciated. I'd rather find out early on that I'm doing it wrong than later on in the process. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why is it preferable to call a static method statically from within an instance of the method's clas

    - by javanix
    If I create an instance of a class in Java, why is it preferable to call a static method of that same class statically, rather than using this.method()? I get a warning from Eclipse when I try to call static method staticMethod() from within the custom class's constructor via this.staticMethod(). public MyClass() { this.staticMethod(); } vs public MyClass() { MyClass.staticMethod(); } Can anyone explain why this is a bad thing to do? It seems to me like the compiler should already have allocated an instance of the object, so statically allocating memory would be unneeded overhead.

    Read the article

  • How does this code break the Law of Demeter?

    - by Dave Jarvis
    The following code breaks the Law of Demeter: public class Student extends Person { private Grades grades; public Student() { } /** Must never return null; throw an appropriately named exception, instead. */ private synchronized Grades getGrades() throws GradesException { if( this.grades == null ) { this.grades = createGrades(); } return this.grades; } /** Create a new instance of grades for this student. */ protected Grades createGrades() throws GradesException { // Reads the grades from the database, if needed. // return new Grades(); } /** Answers if this student was graded by a teacher with the given name. */ public boolean isTeacher( int year, String name ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // The method only knows about Teacher instances. // return getTeacher( year ).nameEquals( name ); } private Grades getGradesForYear( int year ) throws GradesException { // The method only knows about Grades instances. // return getGrades().getForYear( year ); } private Teacher getTeacher( int year ) throws GradesException, TeacherException { // This method knows about Grades and Teacher instances. A mistake? // return getGradesForYear( year ).getTeacher(); } } public class Teacher extends Person { public Teacher() { } /** * This method will take into consideration first name, * last name, middle initial, case sensitivity, and * eventually it could answer true to wild cards and * regular expressions. */ public boolean nameEquals( String name ) { return getName().equalsIgnoreCase( name ); } /** Never returns null. */ private synchronized String getName() { if( this.name == null ) { this.name == ""; } return this.name; } } Questions How is the LoD broken? Where is the code breaking the LoD? How should the code be written to uphold the LoD?

    Read the article

  • Double associative array or indexed + associative array

    - by clover
    I'm undecided what's the best-practice approach for what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to enter data into an array where the data will look like this: apple color: red price: 2 orange color: orange price: 3 banana color: yellow price: 2 pineapple color: yellow price: 5 When I get input, let's say green apple (notice it's a combo of color + name of fruit), I'm going to check if the name of fruit part exists in the array and display its data (if it exists). What's the right way to compose those arrays? How would I do an indexed array containing an associative array? (or would this be better as 2 nested associative arrays, I'm guessing not)

    Read the article

  • When to use "property" builtin: auxiliary functions and generators

    - by Seth Johnson
    I recently discovered Python's property built-in, which disguises class method getters and setters as a class's property. I'm now being tempted to use it in ways that I'm pretty sure are inappropriate. Using the property keyword is clearly the right thing to do if class A has a property _x whose allowable values you want to restrict; i.e., it would replace the getX() and setX() construction one might write in C++. But where else is it appropriate to make a function a property? For example, if you have class Vertex(object): def __init__(self): self.x = 0.0 self.y = 1.0 class Polygon(object): def __init__(self, list_of_vertices): self.vertices = list_of_vertices def get_vertex_positions(self): return zip( *( (v.x,v.y) for v in self.vertices ) ) is it appropriate to add vertex_positions = property( get_vertex_positions ) ? Is it ever ok to make a generator look like a property? Imagine if a change in our code meant that we no longer stored Polygon.vertices the same way. Would it then be ok to add this to Polygon? @property def vertices(self): for v in self._new_v_thing: yield v.calculate_equivalent_vertex()

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175  | Next Page >