Search Results

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

Page 171/348 | < Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >

• Is this multi line if statement too complex?

  - by AndHeCodedIt

  I am validating input on a form and attempting to prompt the user of improper input(s) based on the combination of controls used. For example, I have 2 combo boxes and 3 text boxes. The 2 combo boxes must always have a value other than the first (default) value, but one of three, or two of three, or all text boxes can be filled to make the form valid. In one such scenario I have a 6 line if statement to try to make the test easily readable: if ((!String.Equals(ComboBoxA.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_A_CHOICE.ToString()) && !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxA.Text) && !String.Equals(ComboBoxB.SelectedValue.ToString(), DEFAULT_COMBO_B_CHOICE.ToString())) || (!String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxB.Text) || !String.IsNullOrEmpty(TextBoxC.Text))) { //Do Some Validation } I have 2 questions: Should this type of if statement be avoided at all cost? Would it be better to enclose this test in another method? (This would be a good choice as this validation will happen in more than one scenario) Thanks for your input(s)!

  Read the article

• What is the role of the Router Object in MVC based frameworks

  - by Saif Bechan

  In most MVC based framework I see a router object. If I look at it splits up the uri and decides what controller should be used, and which action should be fired. Even though this makes a lot of sense, I can not give this a place in the MVC patern. Is splitting up the uri not the job of the controller. And then the controller should just decide which class and function to run.

  Read the article

• Question about a possible design pattern...

  - by Aftershock

  I have such a design in my mind.... My aim is to reuse the program with some features included and without some features. What is it called in the literature? class feature1 { void feature1function1(); void feature1function2(); } class feature2 { void feature2function1(); void feature2function2(); } class program: feature1, feature2 { void function1() { feature2function1(); } void function2() { feature1function1(); feature2function1(); } void execute() { function1(); function2(); } }

  Read the article

• Can I use the decorator pattern to wrap a method body?

  - by mgroves

  I have a bunch of methods with varying signatures. These methods interact with a fragile data connection, so we often use a helper class to perform retries/reconnects, etc. Like so: MyHelper.PerformCall( () => { doStuffWithData(parameters...) }); And this works fine, but it can make the code a little cluttery. What I would prefer to do is decorate the methods that interact with the data connection like so: [InteractsWithData] protected string doStuffWithData(parameters...) { // do stuff... } And then essentially, whenever doStuffWithData is called, the body of that method would be passed in as an Action to MyHelper.PerformCall(). How do I do this?

  Read the article

• Manipulate data in the DB query or in the code

  - by DrDro

  How do you decide on which side you perform your data manipulation when you can either do it in the code or in the query ? When you need to display a date in a specific format for example. Do you retrieve the desired format directly in the sql query or you retrieve the date then format it through the code ? What helps you to decide : performance, best practice, preference in SQL vs the code language, complexity of the task... ?

  Read the article

• how to implement this observer pattern?

  - by lethal

  Hello. I have 4 classes, that describe state diagram. Node, Edge, ComponentOfNode, ComponentOfEdge. ComponentOfEdge compounds from ComponentsOfNode. Node can have 0..n outgoing edges. Edge can have only 2 nodes. Edge should be able to offer ComponentOfNode, but only from nodes that Edge has, in form ComponentOfEdge. The user can change ComponentsOfNode. I need this change spreads to all Edge. Hw to do it? I expect the observer should be used. Can you give me example in pseudocode please?

  Read the article

• How should I ethically approach user password storage for later plaintext retrieval?

  - by Shane

  As I continue to build more and more websites and web applications I am often asked to store user's passwords in a way that they can be retrieved if/when the user has an issue (either to email a forgotten password link, walk them through over the phone, etc.) When I can I fight bitterly against this practice and I do a lot of ‘extra’ programming to make password resets and administrative assistance possible without storing their actual password. When I can’t fight it (or can’t win) then I always encode the password in some way so that it at least isn’t stored as plaintext in the database—though I am aware that if my DB gets hacked that it won’t take much for the culprit to crack the passwords as well—so that makes me uncomfortable. In a perfect world folks would update passwords frequently and not duplicate them across many different sites—unfortunately I know MANY people that have the same work/home/email/bank password, and have even freely given it to me when they need assistance. I don’t want to be the one responsible for their financial demise if my DB security procedures fail for some reason. Morally and ethically I feel responsible for protecting what can be, for some users, their livelihood even if they are treating it with much less respect. I am certain that there are many avenues to approach and arguments to be made for salting hashes and different encoding options, but is there a single ‘best practice’ when you have to store them? In almost all cases I am using PHP and MySQL if that makes any difference in the way I should handle the specifics. Additional Information for Bounty I want to clarify that I know this is not something you want to have to do and that in most cases refusal to do so is best. I am, however, not looking for a lecture on the merits of taking this approach I am looking for the best steps to take if you do take this approach. In a note below I made the point that websites geared largely toward the elderly, mentally challenged, or very young can become confusing for people when they are asked to perform a secure password recovery routine. Though we may find it simple and mundane in those cases some users need the extra assistance of either having a service tech help them into the system or having it emailed/displayed directly to them. In such systems the attrition rate from these demographics could hobble the application if users were not given this level of access assistance, so please answer with such a setup in mind. Thanks to Everyone This has been a fun questions with lots of debate and I have enjoyed it. In the end I selected an answer that both retains password security (I will not have to keep plain text or recoverable passwords), but also makes it possible for the user base I specified to log into a system without the major drawbacks I have found from normal password recovery. As always there were about 5 answers that I would like to have marked correct for different reasons, but I had to choose the best one--all the rest got a +1. Thanks everyone!

  Read the article

• Is it ok to throw NotImplemented exception in virtual methods?

  - by Axarydax

  I have a base class for some plugin-style stuff, and there are some methods that are absolutely required to be implemented. I currently declare those in the base class as virtual, for example public virtual void Save { throw new NotImplementedException(); } and in the descendand I have a public override void Save() { //do stuff } Is it a good practice to throw a NotImplementedException there? The descendand classes could for example be the modules for handling different file formats. Thanks

  Read the article

• Best practice for near reuse of model components?

  - by Chris Knight

  I have a requirement to use a Fund model in my code. It will contain a fund name and fund code. In the interest of reuse I've poked around the package containing the other models used and found an existing Fund model. However the issue here is that, in addition to fund name and code, it also contains an amount. Amount isn't directly relevant in my context. So, do I: 1) Use the existing Fund model as is, ignoring the setters/getters for fund amount. 2) Put a FundDescription interface onto the existing Fund model for accessing only the information I'm interested in. 3) Make a FundDescription base class from which the existing Fund model could now extend 4) Create a whole new seperate model since the two are slightly contextually different

  Read the article

• how to make objects globally accessible?

  - by fayer

  i have this code: class IC_Core { /** * Database * @var IC_Database */ public static $db = NULL; /** * Core * @var IC_Core */ protected static $_instance = NULL; private function __construct() { } public static function getInstance() { if ( ! is_object(self::$_instance)) { self::$_instance = new self(); self::initialize(self::$_instance); } return self::$_instance; } private static function initialize(IC_Core $IC_Core) { self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); } } but when i wanna access IC_Database with: $IC = IC_Core::getInstance(); $IC->db->add() // it says that its not an object. i think the problem lies in self::$db = new IC_Database($IC_Core); but i dont know how to make it work. could someone give me a hand=) thanks!

  Read the article

• Which pattern to use for logging? Dependency Injection or Service Locator?

  - by andlju

  Consider this scenario. I have some business logic that now and then will be required to write to a log. interface ILogger { void Log(string stuff); } interface IDependency { string GetInfo(); } class MyBusinessObject { private IDependency _dependency; public MyBusinessObject(IDependency dependency) { _dependency = dependency; } public string DoSomething(string input) { // Process input var info = _dependency.GetInfo(); var intermediateResult = PerformInterestingStuff(input, info); if (intermediateResult== "SomethingWeNeedToLog") { // How do I get to the ILogger-interface? } var result = PerformSomethingElse(intermediateResult); return result; } } How would you get the ILogger interface? I see two main possibilities; Pass it using Dependency Injection on the constructor. Get it via a singleton Service Locator. Which method would you prefer, and why? Or is there an even better pattern? Update: Note that I don't need to log ALL method calls. I only want to log a few (rare) events that may or may not occur within my method.

  Read the article

• Does database affect classes?

  - by satyanarayana

  I had created one class User and UserDAOImpl class for querying DB using class User. As there is one table to be queried, these two classes are sufficient for me. What if there is a case where new fields are to be added to that one table is to be divided into 3 tables( user_info, user_profile and user_address) to store user? As new fields are added, I need to change classes User and UserDAOImpl, it seems these two are not sufficient. It seems database changes affect my classes. In this case, do I need to divide class User into 3 classes as tables are changes? Can any one suggest me how can I solve this without making too many changes?

  Read the article

• Request/Response pattern in SOA implementation

  - by UserControl

  In some enterprise-like project (.NET, WCF) i saw that all service contracts accept a single Request parameter and always return Response: [DataContract] public class CustomerRequest : RequestBase { [DataMember] public long Id { get; set; } } [DataContract] public class CustomerResponse : ResponseBase { [DataMember] public CustomerInfo Customer { get; set; } } where RequestBase/ResponseBase contain common stuff like ErrorCode, Context, etc. Bodies of both service methods and proxies are wrapped in try/catch, so the only way to check for errors is looking at ResponseBase.ErrorCode (which is enumeration). I want to know how this technique is called and why it's better compared to passing what's needed as method parameters and using standard WCF context passing/faults mechanisms?

  Read the article

• Java: Inputting text from a file using split

  - by 00PS

  I am inputting an adjacency list for a graph. There are three columns of data (vertex, destination, edge) separated by a single space. Here is my implementation so far: FileStream in = new FileStream("input1.txt"); Scanner s = new Scanner(in); String buffer; String [] line = null; while (s.hasNext()) { buffer = s.nextLine(); line = buffer.split("\\s+"); g.add(line[0]); System.out.println("Added vertex " + line[0] + "."); g.addEdge(line[0], line[1], Integer.parseInt(line[2])); System.out.println("Added edge from " + line[0] + " to " + line[1] + " with a weight of " + Integer.parseInt(line[2]) + "."); } System.out.println("Size of graph = " + g.size()); Here is the output: Added vertex a. Added edge from a to b with a weight of 9. Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at structure5.GraphListDirected.addEdge(GraphListDirected.java:93) at Driver.main(Driver.java:28) I was under the impression that line = buffer.split("\\s+"); would return a 2 dimensional array of Strings to the variable line. It seemed to work the first time but not the second. Any thoughts? I would also like some feedback on my implementation of this problem. Is there a better way? Anything to help out a novice! :)

  Read the article

• One class per file rule in .NET?

  - by Joan Venge

  I follow this rule but some of my colleagues disagree with it and argue that if a class is smaller it can be left in the same file with other class(es). Another argument I hear all the time is "Even Microsoft don't do this, so why should we?" What's the general consensus on this? Are there cases where this should be avoided?

  Read the article

• How to provide global functionality in multi-user database app

  - by Mike B

  I have been building a multi-user database application (in C#/WPF 4.0) that manages tasks for all employees of a company. I now need to add some functionality such as sending an email reminder to someone when a critical task is due. How should this be done? Obviously I don’t want every instance of the program to be performing this function (Heh each user would get 10+ emails). Should I add the capability to the application as a "Mode" and then run a copy on the database server in this mode or would it be better to create a new app altogether to perform "Global" type tasks? Is there a better way?

  Read the article

• Is there a design pattern for this ?

  - by ytrewq

  I have a component that needs to call a specific service depending on the input it receives. So my component has to look at the input and based on a configuration that says "for this input call this service with this data" needs to call the proper service. The services have a common signature method and a specific one (each). I thought about an abstract class that includes the signatures for all three methods. The implementation for the two services will override all three methods (throwing NotImplementedException for the methods that are not supported by current service). A component that could be initialized with a map (that for each input type will have the type of the service to be called) will also be defined. Do you have a better approach to cope this scenario ?

  Read the article

• Lock thread using somthing other than a object

  - by Scott Chamberlain

  when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

  Read the article

• Using an embedded DB (SQLite / SQL Compact) for Message Passing within an app?

  - by wk1989

  Hello, Just out of curiosity, for applications that have a fairly complicated module tree, would something like sqlite/sql compact edition work well for message passing? So if I have modules containing data such as: \SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC, \SubSystemB\SubSubSystemC\ModuleA\ModuleDataX Using traditional message passing/routing, you have to go through intermediate modules in order to pass a message to ModuleB to request say ModuleDataC. Instead of doing that, if we we simply store "\SubsystemA\SubSubSysB\ModuleB\ModuleDataC" in a sqlite database, getting that data is as simple as a sql query and needs no routing and passing stuff around. Has anyone done this before? Even if you haven't, do you foresee any issues & performance impact? The only concern I have right now would be the passing of custom types, e.g. if ModuleDataC is a custom data structure or a pointer, I'll need some way of storing the data structure into the DB or storing the pointer into the DB. Thanks, JW EDIT One usage case I haven't thought about is when you want to send a message from ModuleA to ModuleB to get ModuleB to do something rather than just getting/setting data. Is it possible to do this using an embedded DB? I believe callback from the DB would be needed, how feasible is this?

  Read the article

• #Define Compiler Directive in C#

  - by pm_2

  In C, I could declare a compiler directive as follows: #define MY_NUMBER 10 However, in C#, I only appear to be able to do this: #define MY_NUMBER Which is obviously useless in this case. Is this correct, or am I doing something wrong? If not, can anyone suggest a way of doing this, either at namespace or solution level? I thought of maybe creating a static class, but that seems to be overkill for one value.

  Read the article

• Elegant and 'correct' multiton implementation in Objective C?

  - by submachine

  Would you call this implementation of a multiton in objective-c 'elegant'? I have programmatically 'disallowed' use of alloc and allocWithZone: because the decision to allocate or not allocate memory needs to be done based on a key. I know for sure that I need to work with only two instances, so I'm using 'switch-case' instead of a map. #import "Multiton.h" static Multiton *firstInstance = nil; static Multiton *secondInstance = nil; @implementation Multiton + (Multiton *) sharedInstanceForDirection:(char)direction { return [[self allocWithKey:direction] init]; } + (id) allocWithKey:(char)key { return [self allocWithZone:nil andKey:key]; } + (id)allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone andKey:(char)key { Multiton **sharedInstance; @synchronized(self) { switch (key) { case KEY_1: sharedInstance = &firstInstance; break; case KEY_2: sharedInstance = &secondInstance; break; default: [NSException raise:NSInvalidArgumentException format:@"Invalid key"]; break; } if (*sharedInstance == nil) *sharedInstance = [super allocWithZone:zone]; } return *sharedInstance; } + (id) allocWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { //Do not allow use of alloc and allocWithZone [NSException raise:NSObjectInaccessibleException format:@"Use allocWithZone:andKey: or allocWithKey:"]; return nil; } - (id) copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { return self; } - (id) retain { return self; } - (unsigned) retainCount { return NSUIntegerMax; } - (void) release { return; } - (id) autorelease { return self; } - (id) init { [super init]; return self; } PS: I've not tried out if this works as yet, but its compiling cleanly :)

  Read the article

• organizing unit test

  - by soulmerge

  I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

  Read the article

• C++ Singleton design pattern

  - by Artem Barger

  Recently I've bumped into a realization/implementation of the Singleton design pattern for C++. It has looked like this (I have adopted it from the real life example): // a lot of methods are omitted here class Singleton { public: static Singleton* getInstance( ); ~Singleton( ); private: Singleton( ); static Singleton* instance; }; From this declaration I can deduce that the instance field is initiated on the heap. That means there is a memory allocation. What is completely unclear for me is when exactly the memory is going to be deallocated? Or is there a bug and memory leak? It seems like there is a problem in the implementation. My main question is, how do I implement it in the right way?

  Read the article

• C# Design Reduce a Long List of Methods

  - by guazz

  I have a simple application that loads data from an XML file to a database. public class EmployeeLoader() { public void LoadEmpoyees() {...} public void LoadSalaries() {...} public void LoadRegistrationData() {...} public void LoadTaxData() {...} } Is it a good idea to have multiple "Load" methods as this looks like a code smell as I have about tweney Load methods? If so, how do I make my code more readable? Each Load method loads data to the corresponding table in the database via a repository?

  Read the article

• Books on Debugging Techniques?

  - by zooropa

  Are there any books on debugging techniques? A friend of mine is learning to code and he asked me this question. I told him I don't know of any. Is it that you just have to go through the School of Hard Knocks to learn?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178  | Next Page >