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 175/348 | < Previous Page | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >

  • How do you handle multiple (overlapping) projects in trac?

    - by Oliver Giesen
    We are using trac and are really satisfied with it. However, out of the box, trac is best suited for single-project environments only. I'd be interested to hear about the various approaches people take to make it work with multiple projects nevertheless and their experiences with them. Are there any plugins to recommend? Any patches, tweaks or whatnots? Are you maybe even using an entirely different bug-tracking system that offers all of trac's functionality plus multi-project support? We recently started managing a second project ourselves which generally works okay but also has some drawbacks, especially where the two projects overlap because of common library code we wrote that is used in both projects. How do you handle this? (I'll attach our own current approach as an answer to this post.)

    Read the article

  • Design pattern: Polymorphism for list of objects

    - by ziang
    Suppose I have a class A, and A1, A2 inherits from A. There are 2 functions: List<A1> getListA1(){...} List<A2> getListA2(){...} Now I want to do something similar to both A1 and A2 in another function public void process(List<A>){...} If I want to pass the instance of either ListA1 or ListA2, of course the types doesn't match because the compiler doesn't allow the coercion from List< A1 to List< A. I can't do something like this: List<A1> listA1 = getListA1(); List<A> newList = (List<A>)listA1; //this is not allowed. So what is the best approach to the process()? Is there any way to do it in a universal way rather than write the similar code to both List and List?

    Read the article

  • Ignoring (serious) errors to keep the program alive?

    - by SQuirreL bites
    One of the main things I wanted to achieve in my experimental programming language was: When errors occur (Syntax, Name, Type, etc.) keep the program running, no matter how serious or devastating it is. I know that this is probably very bad, but I just wanted something that doesn't kill itself on every error - I find it interesting what happens when a serious error occurs but the program continues. Does this "paradigm" have a name? I mean expect for How bad is it to do the above? Are there programs in use out there that just follow: "Hey, this is a fatal, unexpected error - but you know what? I don't care!"?

    Read the article

  • 'goto' usage

    - by Landon
    I've long been under the impression that 'goto' should never be used if possible. While perusing libavcodec (which is written in C) the other day, I noticed multiple uses of it. Is it ever advantageous to use 'goto' in a language that supports loops and functions? If so, why?

    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

  • how can I "force" a branch upon the trunk, in the case I can't "reintegrate"?

    - by davka
    We created a branch from the trunk on which a major refactoring was done. Meanwhile, the trunk advanced a few revisions with some fixes. We don't want these changes on the branch, so we don't want to "catch-up" merge the trunk to the branch, because we don't want to mix the old and new code. But without this I can't reintegrate the branch back to the trunk. Is there a way to impose the branch on the trunk "as-is"? (an idea I considered is to undo ("reverse-merge") the trunk back to the revision where the branch started, and then it is safe to merge it on branch - nothing should happen. Then I can reintegrate. What do you think?) thanks!

    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

  • The Wheel Invention - Beneficial For Learning?

    - by Sarfraz
    Hello, Chris Coyier of css-tricks.com has written a good article titled Regarding Wheel Invention. In a paragraph he says: On the “reinventing” side, you benefit from complete control and learning from the process. And on the very next line he says: On the other side, you benefit from speed, reliability, and familiarity. Also often at odds are time spent and cost. He is right in both statements I think. I really like his first statement. I do actually sometimes re-invent the wheel to learn more and gain complete control over what I am inventing. I wonder why people are so much against that or rather biased. Isn't there the benefit of learning and getting complete control or probably some other benefits too. I would love to see what you have to say about this.

    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

  • Object Events, how do are they implemented

    - by Malfist
    Events are really awesome, and I wouldn't know what I would do without them, but they're a mystery to me. I'm talking about events in a sense, a function(s) is called if a property, or value, a special event happens. I have only the vaguest idea how these actually work. I know it's an observer pattern, but I don't truly know how it works and/or how to implement it. Can someone explain that to me?

    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

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    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

  • commad design pattern usage

    - by sagie
    Hi. I've read 3 descriptions of the command design pattern: wikipedia, dofactory and source making. In all of them, the UML shows a relation between the client to the receiver & the concrete command, but no relation to the invoker. But in all 3 examples the client is the one that initiates the invoker and call its Execute method. I think that should be a relation to the invoker as well. Am I missing somthing in here? Maybe even a basic UML knowladge?

    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

  • effective counter for unique number of visits in PHP & MySQL

    - by Adnan
    Hello, I am creating a counter for unique number of visits on a post, so what I have until now is a table for storing data like this; cvp_post_id | cvp_ip | cvp_user_id In cases a registered user visits a post, for the first time a record is inserted with cpv_post_id and cvp_user_id, so for his next visit I query the table and if the record is available I do not count him as a new visitor. In cases of an anonymous user the same happens but now the cvp_ip and cpv_post_id are used. My concerns is that I do a query every time anyone visits a post for checking if there has been a visit, what would be a more effective way for doing this?

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with having a few private methods exposing IQueryable<T> and all public meth

    - by Nate Bross
    I'm wondering if there is a better way to approach this problem. The objective is to reuse code. Let’s say that I have a Linq-To-SQL datacontext and I've written a "repository style" class that wraps up a lot of the methods I need and exposes IQueryables. (so far, no problem). Now, I'm building a service layer to sit on top of this repository, many of the service methods will be 1<-1 with repository methods, but some will not. I think a code sample will illustrate this better than words. public class ServiceLayer { MyClassDataContext context; IMyRepository rpo; public ServiceLayer(MyClassDataContext ctx) { context = ctx; rpo = new MyRepository(context); } private IQueryable<MyClass> ReadAllMyClass() { // pretend there is some complex business logic here // and maybe some filtering of the current users access to "all" // that I don't want to repeat in all of the public methods that access // MyClass objects. return rpo.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetAllMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing return this.ReadAllMyClass(); } public IEnumerable<MyClass> GetActiveMyClass() { // call private IQueryable so we can do attional "in-database" processing // in this case a .Where() clause return this.ReadAllMyClass().Where(mc => mc.IsActive.Equals(true)); } #region "Something my class MAY need to do in the future" private IQueryable<MyOtherTable> ReadAllMyOtherTable() { // there could be additional constrains which define // "all" for the current user return context.MyOtherTable; } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetAllMyOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable(); } public IEnumerable<MyOtherTable> GetInactiveOtherTable() { return this.ReadAllMyOtherTable.Where(ot => ot.IsActive.Equals(false)); } #endregion } This particular case is not the best illustration, since I could just call the repository directly in the GetActiveMyClass method, but let’s presume that my private IQueryable does some extra processing and business logic that I don't want to replicate in both of my public methods. Is that a bad way to attack an issue like this? I don't see it being so complex that it really warrants building a third class to sit between the repository and the service class, but I'd like to get your thoughts. For the sake of argument, lets presume two additional things. This service is going to be exposed through WCF and that each of these public IEnumerable methods will be calling a .Select(m => m.ToViewModel()) on each returned collection which will convert it to a POCO for serialization. The service will eventually need to expose some context.SomeOtherTable which wont be wrapped into the repository.

    Read the article

  • How can I make an iterator that never ends?

    - by Soldier.moth
    I was just wondering what the easiest way to iterate over a set indefinitely, i.e. when it reaches the end it next(); calls the first object. I'm assuming that this is not an already predefined function in Java, so just looking for the easiest way to implement this in Java.

    Read the article

  • How to separate model and view with Core Data?

    - by andrewebling
    I have a subclass of UIView which draws itself based on data held in a corresponding model class, which is a subclass of NSManagedObject. The problem is, some fields in the data model (e.g. the position of the view) are already held in the view (i.e. the frame property in this case). I then have a data duplication/synchronization problem to solve. To complicate matters further, the view needs to update in response to changes made to the data model and the data model needs to be updated in responses made to the view (e.g. the user dragging it to a new location). What's the best way to solve this? Using KVO and references in both directions? Or is there a better approach?

    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 | 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182  | Next Page >