Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns and 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 179/348 | < Previous Page | 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186  | Next Page >

  • Many-to-many relationship in oop

    - by Manu
    what is best way to model many-to-many relationship? lets say we have a two classes , Team and Player any given Player can be in multiple Team s any Team can have as many Player s as they like I like to call methods like playerX.getTeamList() to get the list of all the Team s he/she is in teamY.getPlayerList() to get the list of all the Player s in the team (or have some other way to do this effectively) I can think of two ways of doing this , but they just don't feels like good oop pattens. can you think of any good ways , perhaps a design patten ?

    Read the article

  • what is main focus for a developer when coding?

    - by ajsie
    i read a lot of books about how to code right and usually the are talking about all these techniques from a point of view i can't understand. eg. lets consider the singleton pattern. i'm restricting so the class can only be instantiated once. but since it's only me creating the application, if i know that the class only should be instantiated once, then why would i create it a second time? i feel like missing the big picture. what is my main goal when coding an application? how should i think? thanks

    Read the article

  • How to refactor logging in C#?

    - by Jader Dias
    In my services all exposed methods have: try { // the method core is written here } catch(Exception ex) { Log.Append(ex); } It's boring and ugly to repeat it over and over again. There is any way to avoid that? There is better way to keep the service working even if exceptions occurs and keep sending the exception details to the Log class?

    Read the article

  • When to use basic types (Integer, String), and when to write a new class?

    - by belgarat
    Stackoverflow users: A lot of things can be represented in programs by using the basic types, or we can create a new class for it. Example: A social security number can be a number, string or its own object. (Other common examples: Phone numbers, names, zip codes, user id, order id and other id's.) My question is: When should the basic types be used, and when should we write ourselves a new class? I see that when you need to add behavior, you'll want to create a class (example, social security number parsing, validation, formatting, etc). But is this the only criteria? I have come across cases where many of these things are represented as java Integers and/or Strings. We loose the benefit of type-checking, and I have often seen bugs caused by parameters being mixed in calls to function(Intever, Integer, Integer, Integer). On the other hand, some programmers are opposed to over-designing by creating classes for "eveything". Obviously, the answer is "it depends". But, what do you think, and what do you normally do?

    Read the article

  • Is it advisable to have an interface as the return type?

    - by wb
    I have a set of classes with the same functions but with different logic. However, each class function can return a number of objects. It is safe to set the return type as the interface? Each class (all using the same interface) is doing this with different business logic. protected IMessage validateReturnType; <-- This is in an abstract class public bool IsValid() <-- This is in an abstract class { return (validateReturnType.GetType() == typeof(Success)); } public IMessage Validate() { if (name.Length < 5) { validateReturnType = new Error("Name must be 5 characters or greater."); } else { validateReturnType = new Success("Name is valid."); } return validateReturnType; } Are there any pitfalls with unit testing the return type of an function? Also, is it considered bad design to have functions needing to be run in order for them to succeed? In this example, Validate() would have to be run before IsValid() or else IsValid() would always return false. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Efficiently store last X items in an MySQL Database

    - by Saif Bechan
    I want to store the last 3 items in an MySQL database in an efficient way. So when the 4th item is stored the first should be deleted. The way I do this not is first run a query getting the items. Than check what I should do then insert/delete. There has to be a better way to do this. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • sql: DELETE + INSERT vs UPDATE + INSERT

    - by user93422
    A similar question has been asked, but since it always depends, I'm asking for my specific situation separately. I have a web-site page that shows some data that comes from a database, and to generate the data from that database I have to do some fairly complex multiple joins queries. The data is being updated once a day (nightly). I would like to pre-generate the data for the said view to speed up the page access. For that I am creating a table that contains exact data I need. Question: for my situation, is it reasonable to do complete table wipe followed by insert? or should I do update,insert? SQL wise seems like DELETE + INSERT will be easier (it is single SQL expression). EDIT: RDBMS: MS SQL Server 2008 Ent

    Read the article

  • How much to put in a Repository class?

    - by chobo
    When using the repository pattern is it recommended to have one Repository class for each database table? Would I also map one service layer class to one repository class. I'm having a hard time trying to understand how much stuff one repository or service layer class should have. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • require_once at the beginning or when really needed?

    - by takeshin
    Where should I put require_once statements, and why? Always on the beginning of a file, before the class, In the actual method when the file is really needed It depends ? Most frameworks put includes at the beginning and do not care if the file is really needed. Using autoloader is the other case here.

    Read the article

  • How can I achieve this kind of relationship (inheritance, composition, something else)?

    - by Tim
    I would like to set up a foundation of classes for an application, two of which are person and student. A person may or may not be a student and a student is always a person. The fact that a student “is a” person led me to try inheritance, but I can't see how to make it work in the case where I have a DAO that returns an instance of person and I then want to determine if that person is a student and call student related methods for it. class Person { private $_firstName; public function isStudent() { // figure out if this person is a student return true; // (or false) } } class Student extends Person { private $_gpa; public function getGpa() { // do something to retrieve this student's gpa return 4.0; // (or whatever it is) } } class SomeDaoThatReturnsPersonInstances { public function find() { return new Person(); } } $myPerson = SomeDaoThatReturnsPersonInstances::find(); if($myPerson->isStudent()) { echo 'My person\'s GPA is: ', $myPerson->getGpa(); } This obviously doesn't work, but what is the best way to achieve this effect? Composition doesn't sond right in my mind because a person does not “have a” student. I'm not looking for a solution necessarily but maybe just a term or phrase to search for. Since I'm not really sure what to call what I'm trying to do, I haven't had much luck. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Am i using too much jquery? When i'm crossing the line?

    - by Andrea
    Lately i find myself using jquery and javascript a lot, often to do the same things that i did before using css. For example, i alternate table rows color or create buttons and links hover effects using javascript/jquery. Is this acceptable? Or should i keep using css for these kind of things? So the real question is: When i'm using too much jquery? How can i understand when i'm crossing the line? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Should I use a class in this: Reading a XML file using lxml.

    - by PulpFiction
    Hi everyone. This question is in continuation to my previous question, in which I asked about passing around an ElementTree. I need to read the XML files only and to solve this, I decided to create a global ElementTree and then parse it wherever required. My question is: Is this an acceptable practice? I heard global variables are bad. If I don't make it global, I was suggested to make a class. But do I really need to create a class? What benefits would I have from that approach. Note that I would be handling only one ElementTree instance per run, the operations are read-only. If I don't use a class, how and where do I declare that ElementTree so that it available globally? (Note that I would be importing this module) Please answer this question in the respect that I am a beginner to development, and at this stage I can't figure out whether to use a class or just go with the functional style programming approach.

    Read the article

  • group by country with ActiveRecords in Rails

    - by Adnan
    Hello, I have a table with users: name | country | .. | UK | .. | US | .. | US | .. | UK | .. | FR | .. | FR | .. | UK | .. | UK | .. | DE | .. | DE | .. | UK | .. | CA | . . What is the most efficient way with ActiveRecords to get the list of countries in my view and for each country how many users are from, so: US 123 UK 54 DE 33 . . .

    Read the article

  • Mandatory method documentation

    - by Sjoerd
    On my previous job, providing all methods with javadoc was mandatory, which resulted in things like this: /** * Sets the Frobber. * * @param frobber The frobber */ public setFrobber(Frobber frobber) { ... } As you can see, the documentation adds little to the code, but takes up space and work. Should documenting all methods be mandatory or optional? Is there a rule for which methods to document? What are pros and cons of requiring every method to be documented?

    Read the article

  • does anyone see any issues with this thread pattern?

    - by prmatta
    Here is a simple thread pattern that I use when writing a class that needs just one thread, and needs to a specific task. The usual requirements for such a class are that it should be startable, stopable and restartable. Does anyone see any issues with this pattern that I use? public class MyThread implements Runnable { private boolean _exit = false; private Thread _thread = null; public void start () { if (_thread == null) { _thread = new Thread(this, "MyThread"); _thread.start(); } } public void run () { while (_exit) { //do something } } public void stop () { _exit = true; if (_thread != null) { _thread.interrupt(); _thread = null; } } } I am looking for comments around if I am missing something, or if there is a better way to write this.

    Read the article

  • Handling Multiple Form Actions on One View?

    - by Pandiya Chendur
    I have multiple master pages in my asp.net mvc web application... Each of the pages add,edit,view and delete functionalities.... What it does is i have to create multiple views for handling add,edit,view and delete functionalities (ie) the user has to navigate to another view to edit/view the details of a record... How to Handle Multiple Form Actions (ie) add,edit,view and delete functionalities on One View?

    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

  • Code casing question for private class fields

    - by user200295
    Take the following example public class Class1{ public string Prop1{ get {return m_Prop1;} set {m_Prop1 = value; } } private string m_Prop1; // this is standard private property variable name // how do we cap this variable name? While the compiler can figure out same casing // it makes it hard to read private Class2 Class2; // we camel case the parameter public Class1(Class2 class2){ this.Class2 = class2; } } Here are my stock rules The class name is capitalized (Class1) The public properties are capitalized (Prop1) The private field tied to a public property has m_ to indicate this. My coworker prefers _ There is some debate if using m_ or _ should be used at all, as it is like Hungarian notation. Private class fields are capitalized. The part I am trying to figure out is what do I do if when the Class name of a private field matches the private field name. For example, private Class2 Class2; This is confusing. If the private field name is not the same class, for example private string Name; , there isn't much issue. Or am I thinking about the issue wrong. Should my classes and private fields be named in such a way that they don't collide?

    Read the article

  • Could this be considered a well-written class (am I using OOP correctly)?

    - by Ben Dauphinee
    I have been learning OOP principals on my own for a while, and taken a few cracks at writing classes. What I really need to know now is if I am actually using what I have learned correctly, or if I could improve as far as OOP is concerned. I have chopped a massive portion of code out of a class that I have been working on for a while now, and pasted it here. To all you skilled and knowledgeable programmers here I ask: Am I doing it wrong? class acl extends genericAPI{ // -- Copied from genericAPI class protected final function sanityCheck($what, $check, $vars){ switch($check){ case 'set': if(isset($vars[$what])){return(1);}else{return(0);} break; } } // --------------------------------- protected $db = null; protected $dataQuery = null; public function __construct(Zend_Db_Adapter_Abstract $db, $config = array()){ $this->db = $db; if(!empty($config)){$this->config = $config;} } protected function _buildQuery($selectType = null, $vars = array()){ // Removed switches for simplicity sake $this->dataQuery = $this->db->select( )->from( $this->config['table_users'], array('tf' => '(CASE WHEN count(*) > 0 THEN 1 ELSE 0 END)') )->where( $this->config['uidcol'] . ' = ?', $vars['uid'] ); } protected function _sanityRun_acl($sanitycheck, &$vars){ switch($sanitycheck){ case 'uid_set': if(!$this->sanityCheck('uid', 'set', $vars)){ throw new Exception(ERR_ACL_NOUID); } $vars['uid'] = settype($vars['uid'], 'integer'); break; } } private function user($action = null, $vars = array()){ switch($action){ case 'exists': $this->_sanityRun_acl('uid_set', $vars); $this->_buildQuery('user_exists_idcheck', $vars); return($this->db->fetchOne($this->dataQuery->__toString())); break; } } public function user_exists($uid){ return($this->user('exists', array('uid' => $uid))); } } $return = $acl_test->user_exists(1);

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to use Reflection in Unit testing?

    - by Sebi
    During the last years I always thought that in Java, Reflection is widely used during Unit testing. Since some of the variables/methods which have to be checked are private, it is somehow necessary to read the values of them. I always thought that the Reflection API is also used for this purpose. Last week i had to test some packages and therefore write some JUnit tests. As always i used Reflection to access private fields and methods. But my supervisor who checked the code wasn't really happy with that and told me that the Reflection API wasn't meant to use for such "hacking". Instead he suggested to modifiy the visibility in the production code. Is it really bad practice to use Reflection? I can't really believe that

    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 | 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186  | Next Page >