Search Results

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

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

  • Using a message class static method taking in an action to wrap Try/Catch

    - by Chris Marisic
    I have a Result object that lets me pass around a List of event messages and I can check whether an action was successful or not. I've realized I've written this code in alot of places Result result; try { //Do Something ... //New result is automatically a success for not having any errors in it result = new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { //Extension method that returns a Result from the exception result = exception.ToResult(); } if(result.Success) .... What I'm considering is replacing this usage with public static Result CatchException(Action action) { try { action(); return new Result(); } catch (Exception exception) { return exception.ToResult(); } } And then use it like var result = Result.CatchException(() => _model.Save(something)); Does anyone feel there's anything wrong with this or that I'm trading reusability for obscurity?

    Read the article

  • Advanced text search in actionscript-return ALL nouns,adjectives and verbs..

    - by eco_bach
    Hi I know that as3 has some powerful new text search capabilities, especially when combined with regex. I don't even know if this is possible, but I would like to somehow, search any block of text, and return all nouns, adjectives and verbs. What would be the best(most efficent) way to do this? Is regex an option? or would I have to load in some sort of open sourced dictionary 9as used in spellcheckers) to compare with or?? After, I've pulled all the nouns, adjectives and verbs, I need to count and prioritize by their frequency. Any suggestions welcome...

    Read the article

  • MemoryStream instance timing help

    - by rod
    Hi All, Is it ok to instance a MemoryStream at the top of my method, do a bunch of stuff to it, and then use it? For instance: public static byte[] TestCode() { MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream(); ... ... whole bunch of stuff in between ... ... //finally using(m) { return m.ToArray(); } } Updated code public static byte[] GetSamplePDF() { using (MemoryStream m = new MemoryStream()) { Document document = new Document(); PdfWriter.GetInstance(document, m); document.Open(); PopulateTheDocument(document); document.Close(); return m.ToArray(); } } private static void PopulateTheDocument(Document document) { Table aTable = new Table(2, 2); aTable.AddCell("0.0"); aTable.AddCell("0.1"); aTable.AddCell("1.0"); aTable.AddCell("1.1"); document.Add(aTable); for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) { document.Add(new Phrase("Hello World, Hello Sun, Hello Moon, Hello Stars, Hello Sea, Hello Land, Hello People. ")); } } My point was to try to reuse building the byte code. In other words, build up any kind of document and then send it to TestCode() method.

    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

  • 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 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

  • Alternative to singleton for unique resources

    - by user1320881
    I keep reading over and over again that one should avoid using singletons for various reasons. I'm wondering how to correctly handle a situation where a class represents a unique system resource. For example, a AudioOutput class using SDL. Since SDL_OpenAudio can only be open once at a time it makes no sense having more then one object of this type and it seems to me preventing accidentally making more then one object would actually be good. Just wondering what experienced programmers think about this, am i missing another option ?

    Read the article

  • Is there a class like a Dictionary without a Value template? Is HashSet<T> the correct answer?

    - by myotherme
    I have 3 tables: Foos, Bars and FooBarConfirmations I want to have a in-memory list of FooBarConfirmations by their hash: FooID BarID Hash 1 1 1_1 2 1 2_1 1 2 1_2 2 2 2_2 What would be the best Class to use to store this type of structure in-memory, so that I can quickly check to see if a combination exists like so: list.Contains("1_2"); I can do this with Dictionary<string,anything>, but it "feels" wrong. HashSet looks like the right tool for the job, but does it use some form of hashing algorithm in the background to do the lookups efficiently?

    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

  • What do you do in your source control repository when you start a rewrite of a program?

    - by Max Schmeling
    I wrote an application a while back and have been maintaining it for a while now, but it's gotten to the point where there's several major new features to be added, a ton of changes that need made, and I know quite a few things I could do better, so I'm starting a rewrite of the entire program (using bits and pieces from original). My question is, what do you do with SVN at this point? Should I put the new version somewhere else, or should I delete the files I no longer need, add the new files, and just treat it like normal development in SVN? How have you handled this in the past?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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