Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 174/348 | < Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >

  • Is this the correct why of speaking to a "Content Manager" Class?

    - by DeanMc
    I am creating a silverlight site. I am currently breaking out my ideas into pieces of functionality. One of the idea's I have is the concept of a content manager. This is essentially a UI control with 4 regions. Top, Bottom, Right & Left. I also have a collection of objects that are considered "Menu Items". These are controls that function as a way to navigate around, similar to links. The idea I have is to implement an IMenuItem interface. Among the standard pieces of information (Text, PageReference, etc) I was also going to hold a reference to the content manager. My idea behind this thinking is that I can pass the PageReference to a property on the ContentManager and then call a method which knows how to update the content manager accordingly. Is this the best way of implementing this or is their some sort of pattern for it?

    Read the article

  • help me to choose between two designs

    - by alex
    // stupid title, but I could not think anything smarter I have a code (see below, sorry for long code but it's very-very simple): namespace Option1 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public AuxClass1 AuxClass { get { return _auxClass; } set { _auxClass = value; } } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } namespace Option2 { class AuxClass1 { string _field1; public string Field1 { get { return _field1; } set { _field1 = value; } } // another fields. maybe many fields maybe several properties public void Method1() { // some action } public void Method2() { // some action 2 } } class MainClass { AuxClass1 _auxClass; public string Field1 { get { return _auxClass.Field1; } set { _auxClass.Field1 = value; } } public void Method1() { _auxClass.Method1(); } public void Method2() { _auxClass.Method2(); } public MainClass() { _auxClass = new AuxClass1(); } } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { // Option1 Option1.MainClass mainClass1 = new Option1.MainClass(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Field1 = "string1"; mainClass1.AuxClass.Method1(); mainClass1.AuxClass.Method2(); // Option2 Option2.MainClass mainClass2 = new Option2.MainClass(); mainClass2.Field1 = "string2"; mainClass2.Method1(); mainClass2.Method2(); Console.ReadKey(); } } What option (option1 or option2) do you prefer ? In which cases should I use option1 or option2 ? Is there any special name for option1 or option2 (composition, aggregation) ?

    Read the article

  • Android::Creating a clickable collage?

    - by Legend
    I am trying to create something like a rectangular grid with pictures. When a picture is clicked, it should zoom in pushing the other ones out. I don't know what you name you call this particular model with but does anyone have suggestions on where I should start? Collage Example

    Read the article

  • Returning back to the results after editing

    - by Parhs
    Hello, I am developing an application which has several CRUD actions... I am using Java and i am forced to use Struts framework. My problem is: I have a search page which returns some results.The user can click at a result and then he goes to another edit-page... He may apply changes or not...What i need is a way to return at the result page again and at the same scroll position.Javascript must be enabled for this project however.. I am wondering which is the best practice to achieve this effect... A solution would be to save the last search URL but i know that this wouldnt work if the user has multiple results. I know how to do it but i am lloking for a good practice!

    Read the article

  • Validation - Data Integrity

    - by Thomas
    A table can only store 10 records in a particular state, 10 users over 30 years for example, the others must be less than 30 years. It is a business rule and as such should be respected. How to ensure that state? Think: multiple users accessing this table.

    Read the article

  • jquery: How to deal with 'this' in ajax callbacks

    - by Svish
    I currently have code similar to this for a form: $('#some-form') .submit(function() { // Make sure we are not already busy if($(this).data('busy')) return false; $(this).data('busy', true); // Do post $.post("some/url", $(this).serialize(), function(data) { if(data.success) // Success is a boolean I set in the result on the server { // Deal with data } else { // Display error } $('#some-form') .removeData('busy'); }); return false; }); My issue is that I would like to somehow remove the need for knowing the form id in the post callback. In the end where I remove the busy data from the form, I'd like to somehow not have that hard coded. Is there any way I can do this? Is there a way I can hand whatever is in this to the post callback function? Since I know the id right now, I can get around it by doing what I have done, but I'd like to know how to not be dependant on knowing the id, since often I don't have an id. (For example if I have a link in each row in a table and all the rows have the same click handler.

    Read the article

  • Decorator that can take both init args and call args?

    - by digitala
    Is it possible to create a decorator which can be __init__'d with a set of arguments, then later have methods called with other arguments? For instance: from foo import MyDecorator bar = MyDecorator(debug=True) @bar.myfunc(a=100) def spam(): pass @bar.myotherfunc(x=False) def eggs(): pass If this is possible, can you provide a working example?

    Read the article

  • Is it considered bad practice to have ViewModel objects hold the Dispatcher?

    - by stiank81
    My WPF application is structured using the MVVM pattern. The ViewModels will communicate asynchronously with a server, and when the requested data is returned a callback in the ViewModel is triggered, and it will do something with this data. This will run on a thread which is not the UI Thread. Sometimes these callbacks involve work that needs to be done on the UI thread, so I need the Dispatcher. This might be things such as: Adding data to an ObservableCollection Trigger Prism commands that will set something to be displayed in the GUI Creating WPF objects of some kind. I try to avoid the latter, but the two first points here I find to be reasonable things for ViewModels to do. So; is it okay to have ViewModels hold the Dispatcher to be able to Invoke commands for the UI thread? Or is this considered bad practice? And why?

    Read the article

  • what if i keep my class members are public?

    - by anish
    In c++ instance variables are private by default,in Python variables are public by default i have two questions regarding the same:- 1: why Python have all the members are public by default? 2: People say you should your member data should be private what if i make my data to be public? what are the disadvantages of this approch? why it is a bad design?

    Read the article

  • where to store temporary data in MVC 2.0 project

    - by StuffHappens
    Hello! I'm starting to learn MVC 2.0 and I'm trying to create a site with a quiz: user is asked a question and given several options of answer. If he chooses the right answer he gets some points, if he doesn't, he looses them. I tried to do this the following way public class HomeController : Controller { private ITaskGenerator taskGenerator = new TaskGenerator(); private string correctAnswer; public ActionResult Index() { var task = taskGenerator .GenerateTask(); ViewData["Task"] = task.Task; ViewData["Options"] = task.Options; correctAnswer= task.CorrectAnswer; return View(); } public ActionResult Answer(string id) { if (id == correctAnswer) return View("Correct") return View("Incorrect"); } } But I have a problem: when user answers the cotroller class is recreated and I loose correct answer. So what is the best place to store correct answer? Should I create a static class for this purpose? Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Instantiating and referencing models in MVC

    - by fig-gnuton
    In MVC, should each model be a globally accessible singleton accessible to any view/controller? Or should the models be singletons that are dependency injected into any component that requires them? Or should a new model instance be created for each component that needs one, in which case events would be used to propagate changes across model instances of the same class?

    Read the article

  • Can I use an abstract class instead of a private __construct() when creating a singleton in PHP?

    - by Pheter
    When creating a Singleton in PHP, I ensure that it cannot be instantiated by doing the following: class Singleton { private function __construct() {} private function __clone() {} public static function getInstance() {} } However, I realised that defining a class as 'abstract' means that it cannot be instantiated. So is there anything wrong with doing the following instead: abstract class Singleton { public static function getInstance() {} } The second scenario allows me to write fewer lines of code which would be nice. (Not that it actually makes much of a difference.)

    Read the article

  • Instantiate a javascript module only one time.

    - by Cedric Dugas
    Hey guys, I follow a module pattern where I instantiate components, however, a lot of time a component will only be instantiate one time (example: a comment system for an article). For now I instantiate in the same JS file. but I was wondering if it is the wrong approach? It kind of make no sense to instantiate in the same file and always only once. But at the same time, if this file is in the page I want to have access to my module without instantiate from elsewhere, and IF I need another instance, I just create another from elsewhere... Here is the pattern I follow: ApplicationNamespace.Classname = function() { // constructor function privateFunctionInit() { // private } this.privilegedFunction = function() { // privileged privateFunction(); }; privateFunctionInit() }; ApplicationNamespace.Classname.prototype = { Method: function(){} } var class = new ApplicationNamespace.Classname(); What do you think, wrong approach, or is this good?

    Read the article

  • Sys. engineer has decided to dynamically transform all XSLs into DLLs on website build process. DLL

    - by John Sullivan
    Hello, OS: Win XP. Here is my situation. I have a browser based application. It is "wrapped" in a Visual Basic application. Our "Systems Engineer Senior" has decided to spawn DLL files from all of our XSL pages (many of which have duplicate names) upon building a new instance of the website and have the active server pages (ASPX) use the DLL instead. This has created a "known issue" in which ~200 DLL naming conflicts occur and, thus, half of our application is broken. I think a solution to this problem is that, thankfully, we're generating the names of the DLLs and linking them up with our application dynamically. Therefore we can do something kludgy like generate a hash and append it to the end of the DLL file name when we build our website, then always reference the DLL that had some kind of random string / hash appended to its name. Aside from outright renaming the DLLs, is there another way to have multiple DLLs with the same name register for one application? I think the answer is "No, only between different applications using a special technique." Please confirm. Another question I have on my mind is whether this whole idea is a good practice -- converting our XSL pages (which we use in mass -- every time a response from our web app occurs) into DLL functions that call a "function" to do what the XSL page did via an active server page (ASPX), when we were before just sending an XML response to an XSL page via aspx.

    Read the article

  • Is it better for class data to be passed internally or accessed directly?

    - by AaronSzy
    Example: // access fields directly private void doThis() { return doSomeWork(this.data); } // receive data as an argument private void doThis(data) { return doSomeWork(data); } The first option is coupled to the value in this.data while the second option avoids this coupling. I feel like the second option is always better. It promotes loose coupling WITHIN the class. Accessing global class data willy-nilly throughout just seems like a bad idea. Obviously this class data needs to be accessed directly at some point. However, if accesses, to this global class data can be eliminated by parameter passing, it seems that this is always preferable. The second example has the advantage of working with any data of the proper type, whereas the first is bound to working with the just class data. Even if you don't NEED the additional flexibility, it seems nice to leave it as an option. I just don't see any advantage in accessing member data directly from private methods as in the first example. Whats the best practice here? I've referenced code complete, but was not able to find anything on this particular issue.

    Read the article

  • Makefile: expand dependencies

    - by Danyel
    First off, the title is very generic because there are just tons of ways of how to possibly solve this. However, I'm looking for a clean and neat way. Situation: I have two equal object files foo.o and foo-pi.o, the latter of which is position-independent (compiled with -fPIC). Both depend on foo.h and bar.h. Problem: How do I, without code duplication, declare dependency of all foo*.o to bar.h? Solutions so far: $(shell bash -c 'echo -ne foo{-pi,}.o'}: bar.h $(addsuffix .o, $(addprefix fo, o-pi o)): bar.h The first solution is not portable on systems that don't support bash, the second is a dirty solution since I could not figure out how to use empty strings in addprefix.

    Read the article

  • Method returns an IDisposable - Should I dispose of the result, even if it's not assigned to anythin

    - by mjd79
    This seems like a fairly straightforward question, but I couldn't find this particular use-case after some searching around. Suppose I have a simple method that, say, determines if a file is opened by some process. I can do this (not 100% correctly, but fairly well) with this: public bool IsOpen(string fileName) { try { File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None); } catch { // if an exception is thrown, the file must be opened by some other process return true; } } (obviously this isn't the best or even correct way to determine this - File.Open throws a number of different exceptions, all with different meanings, but it works for this example) Now the File.Open call returns a FileStream, and FileStream implements IDisposable. Normally we'd want to wrap the usage of any FileStream instantiations in a using block to make sure they're disposed of properly. But what happens in the case where we don't actually assign the return value to anything? Is it still necessary to dispose of the FileStream, like so: try { using (File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); { /* nop */ } } catch { return true; } Should I create a FileStream instance and dispose of that? try { using (FileStream fs = File.Open(fileName, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read, FileShare.None)); } ... Or are these totally unnecessary? Can we simply call File.Open and not assign it to anything (first code example), and let the GC dispose of it right away?

    Read the article

  • Separating data from the UI code with Linq to SQL entities

    - by Sir Psycho
    If it's important to keep data access 'away' from business and presentation layers, what alternatives or approaches can I take so that my LINQ to SQL entities can stay in the data access layer? So far I seem to be simply duplicating the classes produced by sqlmetal, and passing those object around instead simply to keep the two layers appart. For example, I have a table in my DB called Books. If a user is creating a new book via the UI, the Book class generated by sqlmetal seems like a perfect fit although I'm tightly coupling my design by doing so.

    Read the article

  • Is this SQL select code following good practice?

    - by acidzombie24
    I am using sqlite and will port to mysql (5) later. I wanted to know if I am doing something I shouldnt be doing. I tried purposely to design so I'll compare to 0 instead of 1 (I changed hasApproved to NotApproved to do this, not a big deal and I haven't written any code). I was told I never need to write a subquery but I do here. My Votes table is just id, ip, postid (I don't think I can write that subquery as a join instead?) and that's pretty much all that is on my mind. Naming conventions I don't really care about since the tables are created via reflection and is all over the place. select id, name, body, upvotes, downvotes, (select 1 from UpVotes where IPAddr=? AND post=Post.id) as myup, (select 1 from DownVotes where IPAddr=@0 AND post=Post.id) as mydown from Post where flag = '0' limit ?, ?"

    Read the article

  • Double use of variables?

    - by Vaccano
    I have read that a variable should never do more than one thing. Overloading a variable to do more than one thing is bad. Because of that I end up writing code like this: (With the customerFound variable) bool customerFound = false; Customer foundCustomer = null; if (currentCustomer.IsLoaded) { if (customerIDToFind = currentCustomer.ID) { foundCustomer = currentCustomer; customerFound = true; } } else { foreach (Customer customer in allCustomers) { if (customerIDToFind = customer.ID) { foundCustomer = customer; customerFound = true; } } } if (customerFound) { // Do something } But deep down inside, I sometimes want to write my code like this: (Without the foundCustomer variable) Customer foundCustomer = null; if (currentCustomer.IsLoaded) { if (customerIDToFind = currentCustomer.ID) { foundCustomer = currentCustomer; } } else { foreach (Customer customer in allCustomers) { if (customerIDToFind = customer.ID) { foundCustomer = customer; } } } if (foundCustomer != null) { // Do something } Does this secret desires make me an evil programmer? (i.e. is the second case really bad coding practice?)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181  | Next Page >