Search Results

Search found 44734 results on 1790 pages for 'model based design'.

Page 170/1790 | < Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >

  • StructureMap DI on Model Assembly

    - by Dan dot net
    I’m new to Dependency Injection and had a question/need guidance. I had an application that used the repository pattern for data access. I used StructureMap to get the correct repository and all worked well. I have since broken out my model (including the repository logic) into its own assembly and added a service layer. In the interest of DI the service layer class takes an IRepository in its constructor. This seems wrong to me as now all consumers of my model need to know about the repository (at least configure their DI to know which one to use). I feel like that is getting into the guts of the model. What sounds wrong with this?

    Read the article

  • In Django, using __init__() method of non-abstract parent model to record class name of child model

    - by k-g-f
    In my Django project, I have a non-abstract parent model defined as follows: class Parent(models.Model): classType = models.CharField(editable=False,max_length=50) and, say, two children models defined as follows: class ChildA(Parent): parent = models.OneToOneField(Parent,parent_link=True) class ChildB(Parent): parent = models.OneToOneField(Parent,parent_link=True) Each time I create an instance of ChildA or of ChildB, I'd like the classType attribute to be set to the strings "ChildA" or "ChildB" respectively. What I have done is added an _ _ init_ _() method to Parent as follows: class Parent(models.Model): classType = models.CharField(editable=False,max_length=50) def __init__(self,*args,**kwargs): super(Parent,self).__init__(*args,**kwargs) self.classType = self.__class__.__name__ Is there a better way to implement and achieve my desired result? One downside of this implementation is that when I have an instance of the Parent, say "parent", and I want to get the type of the child object linked with "parent", calling "parent.classType" gives me "Parent". In order to get the appropriate "ChildA" or "ChildB" value, I need to write a "_getClassType()" method to wrap a custom sql query.

    Read the article

  • Django: Converting an entire Model into a single dictionary

    - by LarrikJ
    Is there a good way in Django to convert an entire model to a dictionary? I mean, like this: class DictModel(models.Model): key = models.CharField(20) value = models.CharField(200) DictModel.objects.all().to_dict() ... with the result being a dictionary with the key/value pairs made up of records in the Model? Has anyone else seen this as being useful for them? Thanks. Update I just wanted to add is that my ultimate goal is to be able to do a simple variable lookup inside a Template. Something like: {{ DictModel.exampleKey }} With a result of DictModel.objects.get(key__exact=exampleKey).value Overall, though, you guys have really surprised me with how helpful allof your responses are, and how different the ways to approach it can be. Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Select_related() backwards relation - auto model population

    - by Nick
    Hi. If I have the following model: class Contact(models.Model) name = models.CharField(max_length=100) ... class ContactAddress(models.Model) line1 = models.CharField(max_length=100) line2 = models.CharField(max_length=100) ... contact = models.ForeignKey(Contact) I now want to grab all Contacts and for the address to be auto populated. What would be the best way to do this? The only way I have found so far is to filter out the Contacts I want and loop around each contact and assign this to Contact.addresses. I then use this for outputting each Contacts address within a template. Is there a better way of doing this? Select_related() almost does what I want, but doesn't seem to be able to work in the opposite direction. Thanks in advance for your help on this one!

    Read the article

  • Designing an email system to guarantee delivery

    - by GlenH7
    We are looking to expand our use of email for notification purposes. We understand it will generate more inbox volume, but we are being selective about which events we fire notification on in order to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high. The big question we are struggling with is designing a system that guarantees that the email was delivered. If an email isn't delivered, we will consider that an exception event that needs to be investigated. In reality, I say almost guarantees because there aren't any true guarantees with email. We're just looking for a practical solution to making sure the email got there and experiences others have had with the various approaches to guaranteeing delivery. For the TL;DR crowd - how do we go about designing a system to guarantee delivery of emails? What techniques should we consider so we know the emails were delivered? Our biggest area of concern is what techniques to use so that we know when a message is sent out that it either lands in an inbox or it failed and we need to do something else. Additional requirements: We're not at the stage of including an escalation response, but we'll want that in the future or so we think. Most notifications will be internal to our enterprise, but we will have some notifications being sent to external clients. Some of our application is in a hosted environment. We haven't determined if those servers can access our corporate email servers for relaying or if they'll be acting as their own mail servers. Base design / modules (at the moment): A module to assign tracking identification A module to send out emails A module to receive delivery notification (perhaps this is the same as the email module) A module that checks sent messages against delivery notification and alerts on undelivered email. Some references: Atwood: Send some email Email Tracking Some approaches: Request a response (aka read-receipt or Message Disposition Notification). Seems prone to failure since we have cross-compatibility issues due to differing mail servers and software. Return receipt (aka Delivery Status Notification). Not sure if all mail servers honor this request or not Require an action and therefore prove reply. Seems burdensome to force the recipients to perform an additional task not related to resolving the issue. And no, we haven't come up with a way of linking getting the issue fixed to whether or not the email was received. Force a click-through / Other site sign-in. Similar to requiring some sort of action, this seems like an additional burden and will annoy the users. On the other hand, it seems the most likely to guarantee someone received the notification. Hidden image tracking. Not all email providers automatically load the image, and how would we associate the image(s) with the email tracking ID? Outsource delivery. This gets us out of the email business, but goes back to how to guarantee the out-sourcer's receipt and subsequent delivery to the end recipient. As a related concern, there will be an n:n relationship between issue notification and recipients. The 1 issue : n recipients subset isn't as much of a concern although if we had a delivery failure we would want to investigate and fix the core issue. Of bigger concern is n issues : 1 recipient, and we're specifically concerned in making sure that all n issues were received by the recipient. How does forum software or issue tracking software handle this requirement? If a tracking identifier is used, Where is it placed in the email? In the Subject, or the Body?

    Read the article

  • What are developer's problems with helpful error messages?

    - by Moo-Juice
    It continue to astounds me that, in this day and age, products that have years of use under their belt, built by teams of professionals, still to this day - fail to provide helpful error messages to the user. In some cases, the addition of just a little piece of extra information could save a user hours of trouble. A program that generates an error, generated it for a reason. It has everything at its disposal to inform the user as much as it can, why something failed. And yet it seems that providing information to aid the user is a low-priority. I think this is a huge failing. One example is from SQL Server. When you try and restore a database that is in use, it quite rightly won't let you. SQL Server knows what processes and applications are accessing it. Why can't it include information about the process(es) that are using the database? I know not everyone passes an Applicatio_Name attribute on their connection string, but even a hint about the machine in question could be helpful. Another candidate, also SQL Server (and mySQL) is the lovely string or binary data would be truncated error message and equivalents. A lot of the time, a simple perusal of the SQL statement that was generated and the table shows which column is the culprit. This isn't always the case, and if the database engine picked up on the error, why can't it save us that time and just tells us which damned column it was? On this example, you could argue that there may be a performance hit to checking it and that this would impede the writer. Fine, I'll buy that. How about, once the database engine knows there is an error, it does a quick comparison after-the-fact, between values that were going to be stored, versus the column lengths. Then display that to the user. ASP.NET's horrid Table Adapters are also guilty. Queries can be executed and one can be given an error message saying that a constraint somewhere is being violated. Thanks for that. Time to compare my data model against the database, because the developers are too lazy to provide even a row number, or example data. (For the record, I'd never use this data-access method by choice, it's just a project I have inherited!). Whenever I throw an exception from my C# or C++ code, I provide everything I have at hand to the user. The decision has been made to throw it, so the more information I can give, the better. Why did my function throw an exception? What was passed in, and what was expected? It takes me just a little longer to put something meaningful in the body of an exception message. Hell, it does nothing but help me whilst I develop, because I know my code throws things that are meaningful. One could argue that complicated exception messages should not be displayed to the user. Whilst I disagree with that, it is an argument that can easily be appeased by having a different level of verbosity depending on your build. Even then, the users of ASP.NET and SQL Server are not your typical users, and would prefer something full of verbosity and yummy information because they can track down their problems faster. Why to developers think it is okay, in this day and age, to provide the bare minimum amount of information when an error occurs? It's 2011 guys, come on.

    Read the article

  • Footer not stretching 100% when horizontally scrolled

    - by Dan
    I have a footer which is set to 100% width, but if i size the window smaller so a horizontal scrollbar appears, using the scrollbar shows whitespace to the right of the footer ... its not spanned 100% of the page, just the viewport. <!doctype html> <html lang="en" class="no-js"> <head> <title>test</title> <meta charset="utf-8"> </head> <body> <div id="container" style="width:100%"> <div id="body" style="width:1200px;"> <!-- Body start --> <h1>Main content area</h1> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh.</p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh.</p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh.</p> <!-- Body end --> </div> <div id="footer" style="width:100%; background-color:green;"> <!-- Footer start --> <p><b>FOOTER.</b> Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh.</p> <!-- Footer end --> </div> </div> </body> </html> Size the browser so horizontal scrollbar appears, and then scroll and you will see the footer background just stops. Any ideas? Or is this site the wrong place for web site design/development .. I did have to read the site description but it still wasnt clear, nor was the meta-discussion? Apologies if its in the wrong place.

    Read the article

  • The Oracle Retail Week Awards - most exciting awards yet?

    - by sarah.taylor(at)oracle.com
    Last night's annual Oracle Retail Week Awards saw the UK's top retailers come together to celebrate the very best of our industry over the last year.  The Grosvenor House Hotel on Park Lane in London was the setting for an exciting ceremony which this year marked several significant milestones in British - and global - retail.  Check out our videos about the event at our Oracle Retail YouTube channel, and see if you were snapped by our photographer on our Oracle Retail Facebook page. There were some extremely hot contests for many of this year's awards - and all very deserving winners.  The entries have demonstrated beyond doubt that retailers have striven to push their standards up yet again in all areas over the past year.  The judging panel includes some of the most prestigious names in the retail industry - to impress the panel enough to win an award is a substantial achievement.  This year the panel included the likes of Andy Clarke - Chief Executive of ASDA Group; Mark Newton Jones - CEO of Shop Direct Group; Richard Pennycook - the finance director at Morrisons; Rob Templeman - Chief Executive of Debenhams; and Stephen Sunnucks - the president of Gap Europe.  These are retail veterans  who have each helped to shape the British High Street over the last decade.  It was great to chat with many of them in the Oracle VIP area last night.  For me, last night's highlight was honouring both Sir Stuart Rose and Sir Terry Leahy for their contributions to the retail industry.  Both have set the standards in retailing over the last twenty years and taken their respective businesses from strength to strength, demonstrating that there is always a need for innovation even in larger businesses, and that a business has to adapt quickly to new technology in order to stay competitive.  Sir Terry Leahy's retirement this year marks the end of an era of global expansion for the Tesco group and a milestone in the progression of British retail.  Sir Terry has helped steer Tesco through nearly 20 years of change, with 14 years as Chief Executive.  During this time he led the drive for international expansion and an aggressive campaign to increase market share.  He has led the way for High Street retailers in adapting to the rise of internet retailing and nurtured a very successful home delivery service.  More recently he has pioneered the notion of cross-channel retailing with the introduction of Tesco apps for the iPhone and Android mobile phones allowing customers to scan barcodes of items to add to a shopping list which they can then either refer to in store or order for delivery.  John Lewis Partnership was a very deserving winner of The Oracle Retailer of the Year award for their overall dedication to excellent retailing practices.  The business was also named the American Express Marketing/Advertising Campaign of the Year award for their memorable 'Never Knowingly Undersold' advert series, which included a very successful viral video and radio campaign with Fyfe Dangerfield's cover of Billy Joel's 'She's Always a Woman' used for the adverts.  Store Design of the Year was another exciting category with Topshop taking the accolade for its flagship Oxford Street store in London, which combines boutique concession-style stalls with high fashion displays and exclusive collections from leading designers.  The store even has its own hairdressers and food hall, making it a truly all-inclusive fashion retail experience and a global landmark for any self-respecting international fashion shopper. Over the next few weeks we'll be exploring some of the winning entries in more detail here on the blog, so keep an eye out for some unique insights into how the winning retailers have made such remarkable achievements. 

    Read the article

  • Character Stats and Power

    - by Stephen Furlani
    I'm making an RPG game system and I'm having a hard time deciding on doing detailed or abstract character statistics. These statistics define the character's natural - not learned - abilities. For example: Mass Effect: 0 (None that I can see) X20 (Xtreme Dungeon Mastery): 1 "STAT" Diablo: 4 "Strength, Magic, Dexterity, Vitality" Pendragon: 5 "SIZ, STR, DEX, CON, APP" Dungeons & Dragons (3.x, 4e): 6 "Str, Dex, Con, Wis, Int, Cha" Fallout 3: 7 "S.P.E.C.I.A.L." RIFTS: 8 "IQ, ME, MA, PS, PP, PE, PB, Spd" Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (1st ed?): 12-ish "WS, BS, S, T, Ag, Int, WP, Fel, A, Mag, IP, FP" HERO (5th ed): 14 "Str, Dex, Con, Body, Int, Ego, Pre, Com, PD, ED, Spd, Rec, END, STUN" The more stats, the more complex and detailed your character becomes. This comes with a trade-off however, because you usually only have limited resources to describe your character. D&D made this infamous with the whole min/max-ing thing where strong characters were typically not also smart. But also, a character with a high Str typically also has high Con, Defenses, Hit Points/Health. Without high numbers in all those other stats, they might as well not be strong since they wouldn't hold up well in hand-to-hand combat. So things like that force trade-offs within the category of strength. So my original (now rejected) idea was to force players into deciding between offensive and defensive stats: Might / Body Dexterity / Speed Wit / Wisdom Heart Soul But this left some stat's without "opposites" (or opposites that were easily defined). I'm leaning more towards the following: Body (Physical Prowess) Mind (Mental Prowess) Heart (Social Prowess) Soul (Spiritual Prowess) This will define a character with just 4 numbers. Everything else gets based off of these numbers, which means they're pretty important. There won't, however, be ways of describing characters who are fast, but not strong or smart, but absent minded. Instead of defining the character with these numbers, they'll be detailing their character by buying skills and powers like these: Quickness Add a +2 Bonus to Body Rolls when Dodging. for a character that wants to be faster, or the following for a big, tough character Body Building Add a +2 Bonus to Body Rolls when Lifting, Pushing, or Throwing objects. [EDIT - removed subjectiveness] So my actual questions is what are some pitfalls with a small stat list and a large amount of descriptive powers? Is this more difficult to port cross-platform (pen&paper, PC) for example? Are there examples of this being done well/poorly? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • ResourceSerializable: an alternate to ORM and ActiveRecord

    - by Levi Morrison
    A few opinionated reasons I don't like the traditional ORM and ActiveRecord patterns: They work only with a database. Sometimes I'm dealing with objects from an API and other objects from a database. All the implementations I have seen don't allow for that. Feel free to clue me in if I'm wrong on this. They are brittle. Changes in the database will likely break your implemenation. Some implementations can help reduce this, but a few of the ones I've seen don't. Their very design is influenced by the database. If I want to switch to using an API, I'll have to redesign the object to get it to work (likely). It seems to violate the single-responsibility pattern. They know what they are and how they act, but they also know how they are created, destroyed and saved? Seems a bit much. What about an approach that is somewhat more familiar in PHP: implementing an interface? In php 5.4, we'll have the JsonSerializable interface that defines the data to be json_encoded, so users will become accustomed to this type of thing. What if there was a ResourceSerializable interface? This is still an ORM by name, but certainly not by tradition. interface ResourceSerializable { /** * Returns the id that identifies the resource. */ function resourceId(); /** * Returns the 'type' of the resource. */ function resourceType(); /** * Returns the data to be serialized. */ function resourceSerialize(); } Things might be poorly named, I'll take suggestions. Notes: ResourceId will work for API's and databases. As long as your primary key in the database is the same as the resource ID in the API, there is no conflict. All of the API's I've worked with have a unique ID for the resource, so I don't see any issues there. ResourceType is the group or type associated with the resource. You can use this to map the resource to an API call or a database table. If the ResourceType was person, it could map to /api/1/person/{resourceId} and the table persons (or people, if it's smart enough). resourceSerialize() returns the data to be stored. Keys would identify API parameters and database table columns. This also seems easier to test than ActiveRecord / Orm implemenations. I haven't done much automated testing on traditional ActiveRecord/ORM implemenations, so this is merely a guess. But it seems that I being able to create objects independently of the library helps me. I don't have to use load() to get an existing resource, I can simply create one and set all the right properties. This is not so easy in the ActiveRecord / Orm implemenations I've dealt with. Downsides: You need another object to serialize it. This also means you have more code in general as you have to use more objects. You have to map resource types to API calls and database tables. This is even more work, but some ORMs and ActiveRecord implementations require you to map objects to table names anyway. Are there other downsides that you see? Does this seem feasible to you? How would you improve it? Note: I almost asked this on StackOverflow because it might be too vague for their standards, but I'm still not really familiar with programmers.stackexchange.com, so please help me improve my question if it doesn't shape up to standards here.

    Read the article

  • How would you gather client's data on Google App Engine without using Datastore/Backend Instances too much?

    - by ruslan
    I'm relatively new to StackExchange and not sure if it's appropriate place to ask design question. Site gives me a hint "The question you're asking appears subjective and is likely to be closed". Please let me know. Anyway.. One of the projects I'm working on is online survey engine. It's my first big commercial project on Google App Engine. I need your advice on how to collect stats and efficiently record them in DataStore without bankrupting me. Initial requirements are: After user finishes survey client sends list of pairs [ID (int) + PercentHit (double)]. This list shows how close answers of this user match predefined answers of reference answerers (which identified by IDs). I call them "target IDs". Creator of the survey wants to see aggregated % for given IDs for last hour, particular timeframe or from the beginning of the survey. Some surveys may have thousands of target/reference answerers. So I created entity public class HitsStatsDO implements Serializable { @Id transient private Long id; transient private Long version = (long) 0; transient private Long startDate; @Parent transient private Key parent; // fake parent which contains target id @Transient int targetId; private double avgPercent; private long hitCount; } But writing HitsStatsDO for each target from each user would give a lot of data. For instance I had a survey with 3000 targets which was answered by ~4 million people within one week with 300K people taking survey in first day. Even if we assume they were answering it evenly for 24 hours it would give us ~1040 writes/second. Obviously it hits concurrent writes limit of Datastore. I decided I'll collect data for one hour and save that, that's why there are avgPercent and hitCount in HitsStatsDO. GAE instances are stateless so I had to use dynamic backend instance. There I have something like this: // Contains stats for one hour private class Shard { ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(); Map<Integer, HitsStatsDO> map = new HashMap<Integer, HitsStatsDO>(); // Key is target ID public void saveToDatastore(); public void updateStats(Long startDate, Map<Integer, Double> hits); } and map with shard for current hour and previous hour (which doesn't stay here for long) private HashMap<Long, Shard> shards = new HashMap<Long, Shard>(); // Key is HitsStatsDO.startDate So once per hour I dump Shard for previous hour to Datastore. Plus I have class LifetimeStats which keeps Map<Integer, HitsStatsDO> in memcached where map-key is target ID. Also in my backend shutdown hook method I dump stats for unfinished hour to Datastore. There is only one major issue here - I have only ONE backend instance :) It raises following questions on which I'd like to hear your opinion: Can I do this without using backend instance ? What if one instance is not enough ? How can I split data between multiple dynamic backend instances? It hard because I don't know how many I have because Google creates new one as load increases. I know I can launch exact number of resident backend instances. But how many ? 2, 5, 10 ? What if I have no load at all for a week. Constantly running 10 backend instances is too expensive. What do I do with data from clients while backend instance is dead/restarting? Thank you very much in advance for your thoughts.

    Read the article

  • Is reliance on parametrized queries the only way to protect against SQL injection?

    - by Chris Walton
    All I have seen on SQL injection attacks seems to suggest that parametrized queries, particularly ones in stored procedures, are the only way to protect against such attacks. While I was working (back in the Dark Ages) stored procedures were viewed as poor practice, mainly because they were seen as less maintainable; less testable; highly coupled; and locked a system into one vendor; (this question covers some other reasons). Although when I was working, projects were virtually unaware of the possibility of such attacks; various rules were adopted to secure the database against corruption of various sorts. These rules can be summarised as: No client/application had direct access to the database tables. All accesses to all tables were through views (and all the updates to the base tables were done through triggers). All data items had a domain specified. No data item was permitted to be nullable - this had implications that had the DBAs grinding their teeth on occasion; but was enforced. Roles and permissions were set up appropriately - for instance, a restricted role to give only views the right to change the data. So is a set of (enforced) rules such as this (though not necessarily this particular set) an appropriate alternative to parametrized queries in preventing SQL injection attacks? If not, why not? Can a database be secured against such attacks by database (only) specific measures? EDIT Emphasis of the question changed slightly, in the light of the initial responses received. Base question unchanged. EDIT2 The approach of relying on paramaterized queries seems to be only a peripheral step in defense against attacks on systems. It seems to me that more fundamental defenses are both desirable, and may render reliance on such queries not necessary, or less critical, even to defend specifically against injection attacks. The approach implicit in my question was based on "armouring" the database and I had no idea whether it was a viable option. Further research has suggested that there are such approaches. I have found the following sources that provide some pointers to this type of approach: http://database-programmer.blogspot.com http://thehelsinkideclaration.blogspot.com The principle features I have taken from these sources is: An extensive data dictionary, combined with an extensive security data dictionary Generation of triggers, queries and constraints from the data dictionary Minimize Code and maximize data While the answers I have had so far are very useful and point out difficulties arising from disregarding paramaterized queries, ultimately they do not answer my original question(s) (now emphasised in bold).

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice, point of view of well experienced developers

    - by Damien MIRAS
    My manager pushes me to use his self defined best practices. All of these practices are based on is own assumptions. I disagree with them and I would like to have some feedback of well experienced people about these practices. I would prefer answers from people involved in the maintenance of huge products and people whom have maintained the product for years. Developers with 15+ years of experience are preferred because my manager has that much experience himself. I have 7 years of experience. Here are the practices he wants me to use: never extends classes, use composition and interface instead because extending classes are unmaintainable and difficult to debug. What I think about that Extend when needed, respect "Liskov's Substitution Principle" and you'll never be stuck with a problem, but prefer composition and decoration. I don't know any serious project which has banned inheriting, sometimes it's impossible to not use that, i.e. in a UI framework. Design patterns are just unusable. In PHP, for simple use cases (for example a user needs a web interface to view a database table), his "best practice" is: copy some random php code wich we own, paste and modify it, put html and php code in same file, never use classes in PHP, it doesn't work well for small jobs, and in fact it doesn't work well at all, there is no good tool to work with. Copy & paste PHP code is good practice for maintenance because scripts are independent, if you have a bug somewhere you can fix it without side effects. What I think about that: NEVER EVER COPY code or do it because you have five minutes to deliver something, you will do some refactoring after that. Copy & paste code is a beginners error, if you have errors you'll have the error everywhere any time you have pasted it's a nightmare to maintain. If you repsect the "Open Close Principle" you'll rarely get edge effects, use unit test if you are afraid of that. For small jobs in PHP use at least something you get or write the HTML separately from the PHP code and reuse it any time you need it. Classes in PHP are mature, not as mature as other languages like python or java, but they are usable. There is tools to work with classes in PHP like Zend Studio that work very well. The use of classes or not depends not on the language you use but the programming paradigm you have choosen. I'm a OOP developer, I use PHP5, why do I have to shoot myself in the foot? When you find a simple bug in the code, and you can fix it simply, if you are not working on the code where you have found it, never fix it, even if it takes 5 seconds. He says to me his "best practices" are driven by the fact that he has a lot of experience in maintaining software in production (14 years) and he now knows what works and what doesn't work, what the community says is a fad, and the people advocating such principles as never copy & paste code, are not evolved in maintaining applications. What I think about that: If you find a bug fix it if you can do it quickly inform the people who've touched that code before, check if you have not introduced a new bug, ideally add a unit test for it. I currently work on a web commerce project, which serves 15k unique users per day. The code base has to be maintained and has been maintained this way since 2005. Ideally you include a short description of your position and experience in terms of years effectively maintaining an application which has been in production for real.

    Read the article

  • Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

    - by Martin
    I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

    Read the article

  • Best Creational Pattern for loggers in a multi-threaded system?

    - by Dipan Mehta
    This is a follow up question on my past questions : Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application As suggested by others, I am putting this question separately. As the learning from the last question. In a multi-threaded environment, the logger should be made thread safe and probably asynchronous (where in messages are queued while a background thread does writing releasing the requesting object thread). The logger could be signleton or it can be a per-group logger which is a generalization of the above. Now, the question that arise is how does logger should be assigned to the object? There are two options I can think of: 1. Object requesting for the logger: Should each of the object call some global API such as get_logger()? Such an API returns "the" singleton or the group logger. However, I feel this involves assumption about the Application environment to implement the logger -which I think is some kind of coupling. If the same object needs to be used by other application - this new application also need to implement such a method. 2. Assign logger through some known API The other alternative approach is to create a kind of virtual class which is implemented by application based on App's own structure and assign the object sometime in the constructor. This is more generalized method. Unfortunately, when there are so many objects - and rather a tree of objects passing on the logger objects to each level is quite messy. My question is there a better way to do this? If you need to pick any one of the above, which approach is would you pick and why? Other questions remain open about how to configure them: How do objects' names or ID are assigned so that will be used for printing on the log messages (as the module names) How do these objects find the appropriate properties (such as log levels, and other such parameters) In the first approach, the central API needs to deal with all this varieties. In the second approach - there needs to be additional work. Hence, I want to understand from the real experience of people, as to how to write logger effectively in such an environment.

    Read the article

  • How should I plan the inheritance structure for my game?

    - by Eric Thoma
    I am trying to write a platform shooter in C++ with a really good class structure for robustness. The game itself is secondary; it is the learning process of writing it that is primary. I am implementing an inheritance tree for all of the objects in my game, but I find myself unsure on some decisions. One specific issue that it bugging me is this: I have an Actor that is simply defined as anything in the game world. Under Actor is Character. Both of these classes are abstract. Under Character is the Philosopher, who is the main character that the user commands. Also under Character is NPC, which uses an AI module with stock routines for friendly, enemy and (maybe) neutral alignments. So under NPC I want to have three subclasses: FriendlyNPC, EnemyNPC and NeutralNPC. These classes are not abstract, and will often be subclassed in order to make different types of NPC's, like Engineer, Scientist and the most evil Programmer. Still, if I want to implement a generic NPC named Kevin, it would nice to be able to put him in without making a new class for him. I could just instantiate a FriendlyNPC and pass some values for the AI machine and for the dialogue; that would be ideal. But what if Kevin is the one benevolent Programmer in the whole world? Now we must make a class for him (but what should it be called?). Now we have a character that should inherit from Programmer (as Kevin has all the same abilities but just uses the friendly AI functions) but also should inherit from FriendlyNPC. Programmer and FriendlyNPC branched away from each other on the inheritance tree, so inheriting from both of them would have conflicts, because some of the same functions have been implemented in different ways on the two of them. 1) Is there a better way to order these classes to avoid these conflicts? Having three subclasses; Friendly, Enemy and Neutral; from each type of NPC; Engineer, Scientist, and Programmer; would amount to a huge number of classes. I would share specific implementation details, but I am writing the game slowly, piece by piece, and so I haven't implemented past Character yet. 2) Is there a place where I can learn these programming paradigms? I am already trying to take advantage of some good design patterns, like MVC architecture and Mediator objects. The whole point of this project is to write something in good style. It is difficult to tell what should become a subclass and what should become a state (i.e. Friendly boolean v. Friendly class). Having many states slows down code with if statements and makes classes long and unwieldy. On the other hand, having a class for everything isn't practical. 3) Are there good rules of thumb or resources to learn more about this? 4) Finally, where does templating come in to this? How should I coordinate templates into my class structure? I have never actually taken advantage of templating honestly, but I hear that it increases modularity, which means good code.

    Read the article

  • Would this be a good web application architecture?

    - by Gustav Bertram
    My problem Our MVC based framework does not allow us to cache only part of our output. Ideally we want to cahce static and semi-static bits, and run dynamic bits. In addition, we need to consider data caching that reacts to database changes. My idea The concept I came up with was to represent a page as a tree of XML fragment objects. (I say XML, but I mean XHTML). Some of the fragments are dynamic, and can pull their data directly from models or other sources, but most of the fragments are static scaffolding. If a subtree of fragments is completely static, then I imagine that they could unfold into pure XML that would then be cached as the text representation of their parent element. This process would ideally continue until we are left with a root element that contains all of the static XML, and has a couple of dynamic XML fragments that are resolved and attached to the relevant nodes of the XML tree just before the page is displayed. In addition to separating content into dynamic and static fragments, some fragments could be dynamic and cached. A simple expiry time which propagates up through the XML fragment tree would indicate that a specific fragment should periodically be refreshed. A newspaper section or front page does not need to be updated each second. Minutes or sometimes even longer is sufficient. Other fragments would be dynamic and uncached. Typically too many articles are viewed for them to be cached - the cache would overflow. Some individual articles may be cached if they are extremely popular. Functional notes The folding mechanism could be to be smart enough to judge when it would be more profitable to fold a dynamic cached fragment and propagate the expiry date to the parent fragment, or to keep it separate and simple attach to the XML tree when resolving the page. If some dynamic cached fragments are associated to database objects through mechanisms like a globally unique content id, then changes to the database could trigger changes to the output cache. If fragments store the identifiers of parent fragments, then they could trigger a refolding process that would then include the updated data. A set of pure XML with an ordered array of fragment objects (that each store the identifying information of the node to which they should be attached), can be resolved in a fairly simple way by walking the XML tree, and merging the data from the fragments. Because it is not necessary to parse and construct the entire tree in memory before attaching nodes, processing should be fairly fast. The identifiers of each fragment would be a combination of relevant identity data and the type of fragment object. Cached parent fragments would contain references to these identifiers, in order to then either pull them from the fragment cache, or to run their code. The controller's responsibility is reduced to making changes to the database, and telling the root XML fragment object to render itself. The Question My question has two parts: Is this a good design? Are there any obvious flaws I'm missing? Has somebody else thought of this before? References? Is there an existing alternative that I should consider? A cool templating engine maybe?

    Read the article

  • Why do old programming languages continue to be revised?

    - by SunAvatar
    This question is not, "Why do people still use old programming languages?" I understand that quite well. In fact the two programming languages I know best are C and Scheme, both of which date back to the 70s. Recently I was reading about the changes in C99 and C11 versus C89 (which seems to still be the most-used version of C in practice and the version I learned from K&R). Looking around, it seems like every programming language in heavy use gets a new specification at least once per decade or so. Even Fortran is still getting new revisions, despite the fact that most people using it are still using FORTRAN 77. Contrast this with the approach of, say, the typesetting system TeX. In 1989, with the release of TeX 3.0, Donald Knuth declared that TeX was feature-complete and future releases would contain only bug fixes. Even beyond this, he has stated that upon his death, "all remaining bugs will become features" and absolutely no further updates will be made. Others are free to fork TeX and have done so, but the resulting systems are renamed to indicate that they are different from the official TeX. This is not because Knuth thinks TeX is perfect, but because he understands the value of a stable, predictable system that will do the same thing in fifty years that it does now. Why do most programming language designers not follow the same principle? Of course, when a language is relatively new, it makes sense that it will go through a period of rapid change before settling down. And no one can really object to minor changes that don't do much more than codify existing pseudo-standards or correct unintended readings. But when a language still seems to need improvement after ten or twenty years, why not just fork it or start over, rather than try to change what is already in use? If some people really want to do object-oriented programming in Fortran, why not create "Objective Fortran" for that purpose, and leave Fortran itself alone? I suppose one could say that, regardless of future revisions, C89 is already a standard and nothing stops people from continuing to use it. This is sort of true, but connotations do have consequences. GCC will, in pedantic mode, warn about syntax that is either deprecated or has a subtly different meaning in C99, which means C89 programmers can't just totally ignore the new standard. So there must be some benefit in C99 that is sufficient to impose this overhead on everyone who uses the language. This is a real question, not an invitation to argue. Obviously I do have an opinion on this, but at the moment I'm just trying to understand why this isn't just how things are done already. I suppose the question is: What are the (real or perceived) advantages of updating a language standard, as opposed to creating a new language based on the old?

    Read the article

  • Android - Force Close - Null Pointer on Canvas?

    - by user22241
    Please bear with me. I have a very odd problem. Basically, my app so far, has 3 activities (a main splash screen, an 'options/menu' screen and the main app). If I follow the very specific steps oulined below, I get a 'null pointer exception' in the 2nd activity) and the app force closes...... Here are the steps: Start the app (a game based on Surfaceview), tap through to the third activity so the game is running, then hit the home key so the game is paused and put to the background, the activity/app is ended through DDMS in the SDK then restarted on the device (all OK so far), now if I hit the back key on the device twice in quick succession, it happens. All other sequence of events is fine, even to the point of pressing the back key, waiting for the previous activity to show, then hitting back again - all OK. Only when the back key is pressed twice in quick succession following all the above steps does the problem occur. I'm assuming that the canvas isn't ready as it's showing as 'null' when this happens, but I'm not sure why this is happening as surely it's happening when I'm trying to go back to activity 1, but the logcat shows the error in activity 2. if I stop the activity running my 'doDraw' method (which referenced the canvas), then all is OK - so I can safely assume it is the canvas causing the problem. Also, if I skip my first activity (which is a very basic full-screen button which just displays a splashscreen and waits for the user to tap the screen), and make my 2nd activity the launch activity, again, it is OK. this is the part of the code that I think is probably relevant: @Override public void surfaceChanged(SurfaceHolder arg0, int arg1, int arg2, int arg3) { vheight = this.getHeight(); vwidth = this.getWidth(); } @Override public void surfaceCreated(SurfaceHolder holder) { vheight = this.getHeight(); vwidth = this.getWidth(); this.viewWidth = vwidth; this.viewHeight = vheight; if (runthread==false){ if (preThread.getState()==Thread.State.TERMINATED){ preThread = new OptionsThread(thisholder, thiscontext, thishandler); } preThread.setRunning(true); preThread.start();} } @Override public void surfaceDestroyed(SurfaceHolder holder) { preThread.setRunning(false); //Stop the loop boolean retry = true; //Stop the thread while (retry) { try { preThread.join(); retry = false; } catch (InterruptedException e) { } } Thank you all for any help you can offer

    Read the article

  • Use a custom value object or a Guid as an entity identifier in a distributed system?

    - by Kazark
    tl;dr I've been told that in domain-driven design, an identifier for an entity could be a custom value object, i.e. something other than Guid, string, int, etc. Can this really be advisable in a distributed system? Long version I will invent an situation analogous to the one I am currently facing. Say I have a distributed system in which a central concept is an egg. The system allows you to order eggs and see spending reports and inventory-centric data such as quantity on hand, usage, valuation and what have you. There area variety of services backing these behaviors. And say there is also another app which allows you to compose recipes that link to a particular egg type. Now egg type is broken down by the species—ostrich, goose, duck, chicken, quail. This is fine and dandy because it means that users don't end up with ostrich eggs when they wanted quail eggs and whatnot. However, we've been getting complaints because jumbo chicken eggs are not even close to equivalent to small ones. The price is different, and they really aren't substitutable in recipes. And here we thought we were doing users a favor by not overwhelming them with too many options. Currently each of the services (say, OrderSubmitter, EggTypeDefiner, SpendingReportsGenerator, InventoryTracker, RecipeCreator, RecipeTracker, or whatever) are identifying egg types with an industry-standard integer representation the species (let's call it speciesCode). We realize we've goofed up because this change could effect every service. There are two basic proposed solutions: Use a predefined identifier type like Guid as the eggTypeID throughout all the services, but make EggTypeDefiner the only service that knows that this maps to a speciesCode and eggSizeCode (and potentially to an isOrganic flag in the future, or whatever). Use an EggTypeID value object which is a combination of speciesCode and eggSizeCode in every service. I've proposed the first solution because I'm hoping it better encapsulates the definition of what an egg type is in the EggTypeDefiner and will be more resilient to changes, say if some people now want to differentiate eggs by whether or not they are "organic". The second solution is being suggested by some people who understand DDD better than I do in the hopes that less enrichment and lookup will be necessary that way, with the justification that in DDD using a value object as an ID is fine. Also, they are saying that EggTypeDefiner is not a domain and EggType is not an entity and as such should not have a Guid for an ID. However, I'm not sure the second solution is viable. This "value object" is going to have to be serialized into JSON and URLs for GET requests and used with a variety of technologies (C#, JavaScript...) which breaks encapsulation and thus removes any behavior of the identifier value object (is either of the fields optional? etc.) Is this a case where we want to avoid something that would normally be fine in DDD because we are trying to do DDD in a distributed fashion? Summary Can it be a good idea to use a custom value object as an identifier in a distributed system (solution #2)?

    Read the article

  • Is my class structure good enough?

    - by Rivten
    So I wanted to try out this challenge on reddit which is mostly about how you structure your data the best you can. I decided to challenge my C++ skills. Here's how I planned this. First, there's the Game class. It deals with time and is the only class main has access to. A game has a Forest. For now, this class does not have a lot of things, only a size and a Factory. Will be put in better use when it will come to SDL-stuff I guess A Factory is the thing that deals with the Game Objects (a.k.a. Trees, Lumberjack and Bears). It has a vector of all GameObjects and a queue of Events which will be managed at the end of one month. A GameObject is an abstract class which can be updated and which can notify the Event Listener The EventListener is a class which handles all the Events of a simulation. It can recieve events from a Game Object and notify the Factory if needed, the latter will manage correctly the event. So, the Tree, Lumberjack and Bear classes all inherits from GameObject. And Sapling and Elder Tree inherits from Tree. Finally, an Event is defined by an event_type enumeration (LUMBERJACK_MAWED, SAPPLING_EVOLUTION, ...) and an event_protagonists union (a GameObject or a pair of GameObject (who killed who ?)). I was quite happy at first with this because it seems quite logic and flexible. But I ended up questionning this structure. Here's why : I dislike the fact that a GameObject need to know about the Factory. Indeed, when a Bear moves somewhere, it needs to know if there's a Lumberjack ! Or it is the Factory which handles places and objects. It would be great if a GameObject could only interact with the EventListener... or maybe it's not that much of a big deal. Wouldn't it be better if I separate the Factory in three vectors ? One for each kind of GameObject. The idea would be to optimize research. If I'm looking do delete a dead lumberjack, I would only have to look in one shorter vector rather than a very long vector. Another problem arises when I want to know if there is any particular object in a given case because I have to look for all the gameObjects and see if they are at the given case. I would tend to think that the other idea would be to use a matrix but then the issue would be that I would have empty cases (and therefore unused space). I don't really know if Sapling and Elder Tree should inherit from Tree. Indeed, a Sapling is a Tree but what about its evolution ? Should I just delete the sapling and say to the factory to create a new Tree at the exact same place ? It doesn't seem natural to me to do so. How could I improve this ? Is the design of an Event quite good ? I've never used unions before in C++ but I didn't have any other ideas about what to use. Well, I hope I have been clear enough. Thank you for taking the time to help me !

    Read the article

  • Best way to load application settings

    - by enzom83
    A simple way to keep the settings of a Java application is represented by a text file with ".properties" extension containing the identifier of each setting associated with a specific value (this value may be a number, string, date, etc..). C# uses a similar approach, but the text file must be named "App.config". In both cases, in source code you must initialize a specific class for reading settings: this class has a method that returns the value (as string) associated with the specified setting identifier. // Java example Properties config = new Properties(); config.load(...); String valueStr = config.getProperty("listening-port"); // ... // C# example NameValueCollection setting = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings; string valueStr = setting["listening-port"]; // ... In both cases we should parse strings loaded from the configuration file and assign the ??converted values to the related typed objects (parsing errors could occur during this phase). After the parsing step, we must check that the setting values ??belong to a specific domain of validity: for example, the maximum size of a queue should be a positive value, some values ??may be related (example: min < max), and so on. Suppose that the application should load the settings as soon as it starts: in other words, the first operation performed by the application is to load the settings. Any invalid values for the settings ??must be replaced automatically with default values??: if this happens to a group of related settings, those settings are all set with default values. The easiest way to perform these operations is to create a method that first parses all the settings, then checks the loaded values ??and finally sets any default values??. However maintenance is difficult if you use this approach: as the number of settings increases while developing the application, it becomes increasingly difficult to update the code. In order to solve this problem, I had thought of using the Template Method pattern, as follows. public abstract class Setting { protected abstract bool TryParseValues(); protected abstract bool CheckValues(); public abstract void SetDefaultValues(); /// <summary> /// Template Method /// </summary> public bool TrySetValuesOrDefault() { if (!TryParseValues() || !CheckValues()) { // parsing error or domain error SetDefaultValues(); return false; } return true; } } public class RangeSetting : Setting { private string minStr, maxStr; private byte min, max; public RangeSetting(string minStr, maxStr) { this.minStr = minStr; this.maxStr = maxStr; } protected override bool TryParseValues() { return (byte.TryParse(minStr, out min) && byte.TryParse(maxStr, out max)); } protected override bool CheckValues() { return (0 < min && min < max); } public override void SetDefaultValues() { min = 5; max = 10; } } The problem is that in this way we need to create a new class for each setting, even for a single value. Are there other solutions to this kind of problem? In summary: Easy maintenance: for example, the addition of one or more parameters. Extensibility: a first version of the application could read a single configuration file, but later versions may give the possibility of a multi-user setup (admin sets up a basic configuration, users can set only certain settings, etc..). Object oriented design.

    Read the article

  • Writing a method to 'transform' an immutable object: how should I approach this?

    - by Prog
    (While this question has to do with a concrete coding dilemma, it's mostly about what's the best way to design a function.) I'm writing a method that should take two Color objects, and gradually transform the first Color into the second one, creating an animation. The method will be in a utility class. My problem is that Color is an immutable object. That means that I can't do color.setRGB or color.setBlue inside a loop in the method. What I can do, is instantiate a new Color and return it from the method. But then I won't be able to gradually change the color. So I thought of three possible solutions: 1- The client code includes the method call inside a loop. For example: int duration = 1500; // duration of the animation in milliseconds int steps = 20; // how many 'cycles' the animation will take for(int i=0; i<steps; i++) color = transformColor(color, targetColor, duration, steps); And the method would look like this: Color transformColor(Color original, Color target, int duration, int steps){ int redDiff = target.getRed() - original.getRed(); int redAddition = redDiff / steps; int newRed = original.getRed() + redAddition; // same for green and blue .. Thread.sleep(duration / STEPS); // exception handling omitted return new Color(newRed, newGreen, newBlue); } The disadvantage of this approach is that the client code has to "do part of the method's job" and include a for loop. The method doesn't do it's work entirely on it's own, which I don't like. 2- Make a mutable Color subclass with methods such as setRed, and pass objects of this class into transformColor. Then it could look something like this: void transformColor(MutableColor original, Color target, int duration){ final int STEPS = 20; int redDiff = target.getRed() - original.getRed(); int redAddition = redDiff / steps; int newRed = original.getRed() + redAddition; // same for green and blue .. for(int i=0; i<STEPS; i++){ original.setRed(original.getRed() + redAddition); // same for green and blue .. Thread.sleep(duration / STEPS); // exception handling omitted } } Then the calling code would usually look something like this: // The method will usually transform colors of JComponents JComponent someComponent = ... ; // setting the Color in JComponent to be a MutableColor Color mutableColor = new MutableColor(someComponent.getForeground()); someComponent.setForeground(mutableColor); // later, transforming the Color in the JComponent transformColor((MutableColor)someComponent.getForeground(), new Color(200,100,150), 2000); The disadvantage is - the need to create a new class MutableColor, and also the need to do casting. 3- Pass into the method the actual mutable object that holds the color. Then the method could do object.setColor or similar every iteration of the loop. Two disadvantages: A- Not so elegant. Passing in the object that holds the color just to transform the color feels unnatural. B- While most of the time this method will be used to transform colors inside JComponent objects, other kinds of objects may have colors too. So the method would need to be overloaded to receive other types, or receive Objects and have instanceof checks inside.. Not optimal. Right now I think I like solution #2 the most, than solution #1 and solution #3 the least. However I'd like to hear your opinions and suggestions regarding this.

    Read the article

  • Why is 0 false?

    - by Morwenn
    This question may sound dumb, but why does 0 evaluates to false and any other [integer] value to true is most of programming languages? String comparison Since the question seems a little bit too simple, I will explain myself a little bit more: first of all, it may seem evident to any programmer, but why wouldn't there be a programming language - there may actually be, but not any I used - where 0 evaluates to true and all the other [integer] values to false? That one remark may seem random, but I have a few examples where it may have been a good idea. First of all, let's take the example of strings three-way comparison, I will take C's strcmp as example: any programmer trying C as his first language may be tempted to write the following code: if (strcmp(str1, str2)) { // Do something... } Since strcmp returns 0 which evaluates to false when the strings are equal, what the beginning programmer tried to do fails miserably and he generally does not understand why at first. Had 0 evaluated to true instead, this function could have been used in its most simple expression - the one above - when comparing for equality, and the proper checks for -1 and 1 would have been done only when needed. We would have considered the return type as bool (in our minds I mean) most of the time. Moreover, let's introduce a new type, sign, that just takes values -1, 0 and 1. That can be pretty handy. Imagine there is a spaceship operator in C++ and we want it for std::string (well, there already is the compare function, but spaceship operator is more fun). The declaration would currently be the following one: sign operator<=>(const std::string& lhs, const std::string& rhs); Had 0 been evaluated to true, the spaceship operator wouldn't even exist, and we could have declared operator== that way: sign operator==(const std::string& lhs, const std::string& rhs); This operator== would have handled three-way comparison at once, and could still be used to perform the following check while still being able to check which string is lexicographically superior to the other when needed: if (str1 == str2) { // Do something... } Old errors handling We now have exceptions, so this part only applies to the old languages where no such thing exist (C for example). If we look at C's standard library (and POSIX one too), we can see for sure that maaaaany functions return 0 when successful and any integer otherwise. I have sadly seen some people do this kind of things: #define TRUE 0 // ... if (some_function() == TRUE) { // Here, TRUE would mean success... // Do something } If we think about how we think in programming, we often have the following reasoning pattern: Do something Did it work? Yes -> That's ok, one case to handle No -> Why? Many cases to handle If we think about it again, it would have made sense to put the only neutral value, 0, to yes (and that's how C's functions work), while all the other values can be there to solve the many cases of the no. However, in all the programming languages I know (except maybe some experimental esotheric languages), that yes evaluates to false in an if condition, while all the no cases evaluate to true. There are many situations when "it works" represents one case while "it does not work" represents many probable causes. If we think about it that way, having 0 evaluate to true and the rest to false would have made much more sense. Conclusion My conclusion is essentially my original question: why did we design languages where 0 is false and the other values are true, taking in account my few examples above and maybe some more I did not think of? Follow-up: It's nice to see there are many answers with many ideas and as many possible reasons for it to be like that. I love how passionate you seem to be about it. I originaly asked this question out of boredom, but since you seem so passionate, I decided to go a little further and ask about the rationale behind the Boolean choice for 0 and 1 on Math.SE :)

    Read the article

  • My QFileSystemModel doesn't work as expected in PyQt

    - by Skilldrick
    I'm learning the Qt Model/View architecture at the moment, and I've found something that doesn't work as I'd expect it to. I've got the following code (adapted from Qt Model Classes): from PyQt4 import QtCore, QtGui model = QtGui.QFileSystemModel() parentIndex = model.index(QtCore.QDir.currentPath()) print model.isDir(parentIndex) #prints True print model.data(parentIndex).toString() #prints name of current directory childIndex = model.index(0, 0, parentIndex) print model.data(childIndex).toString() rows = model.rowCount(parentIndex) print rows #prints 0 (even though the current directory has directory and file children) The question: Is this a problem with PyQt, have I just done something wrong, or am I completely misunderstanding QFileSystemModel? According to the documentation, model.rowCount(parentIndex) should return the number of children in the current directory. The QFileSystemModel docs say that it needs an instance of a Gui application, so I've also placed the above code in a QWidget as follows, but with the same result: import sys from PyQt4 import QtCore, QtGui class Widget(QtGui.QWidget): def __init__(self, parent=None): QtGui.QWidget.__init__(self, parent) model = QtGui.QFileSystemModel() parentIndex = model.index(QtCore.QDir.currentPath()) print model.isDir(parentIndex) print model.data(parentIndex).toString() childIndex = model.index(0, 0, parentIndex) print model.data(childIndex).toString() rows = model.rowCount(parentIndex) print rows def main(): app = QtGui.QApplication(sys.argv) widget = Widget() widget.show() sys.exit(app.exec_()) if __name__ == '__main__': main()

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177  | Next Page >