Search Results

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

Page 18/348 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Is it a bad practice to pass "this" as an argument?

    - by Anna Lear
    I'm currently tempted to write the following: public class Class1() { public Class1() { MyProperty = new Class2(this); } public Class2 MyProperty { get; private set; } } public class Class2() { public Class2(Class1 class1) { ParentClass1 = class1; } public Class1 ParentClass1 { get; set; } } Is passing "this" as an argument a sign of a design problem? What would be a better approach?

    Read the article

  • Is instanceof considered bad practice? If so, under what circumstances is instanceof still preferabl

    - by aioobe
    Over the years, I've tried to avoid instanceof whenever possible. Using polymorphism or the visitor pattern where applicable. I suppose it simply eases maintenance in some situations... Are there any other drawbacks that one should be aware of? I do however see it here and there in the Java libraries so I suppose it has its place? Under what circumstances is it preferable? Is it ever unavoidable?

    Read the article

  • Can the Diamond Problem be really solved?

    - by Mecki
    A typical problem in OO programming is the diamond problem. I have parent class A with two sub-classes B and C. A has an abstract method, B and C implement it. Now I have a sub-class D, that inherits of B and C. The diamond problem is now, what implementation shall D use, the one of B or the one of C? People claim Java knows no diamond problem. I can only have multiple inheritance with interfaces and since they have no implementation, I have no diamond problem. Is this really true? I don't think so. See below: [removed vehicle example] Is a diamond problem always the cause of bad class design and something neither programmer nor compiler needs to solve, because it shouldn't exist in the first place? Update: Maybe my example was poorly chosen. See this image Of course you can make Person virtual in C++ and thus you will only have one instance of person in memory, but the real problem persists IMHO. How would you implement getDepartment() for GradTeachingFellow? Consider, he might be student in one department and teach in another one. So you can either return one department or the other one; there is no perfect solution to the problem and the fact that no implementation might be inherited (e.g. Student and Teacher could both be interfaces) doesn't seem to solve the problem to me.

    Read the article

  • Top 3 reasons not to develop a "blog system" that generates aspx files on the fly.

    - by klausbyskov
    In this question the OP implies that he wants to base the blog system he is developing on automatic creation of .aspx files, one for each new blog entry. In my answer to his question (which is related to something else), I told him that I would discourage him from using such an approach, but without giving any real reasons. He is now wanting reasons why it is not a good idea, and I'm using this question to see if the community can come up with a compelling enough list of reasons for him to use another approach, such as one using a dbms, code-reuse, url-rewriting, MVC, and what not.

    Read the article

  • Observer pattern and violation of Single Principality Rule

    - by Devil Jin
    I have an applet which repaints itself once the text has changed Design 1: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet implements Listener{ private DynamicText text = null; public void init(){ text = new DynamicText("Welcome"); } public void paint(Graphics g){ g.drawString(text.getText(), 50, 30); } //implement Listener update() method public void update(){ repaint(); } } //DynamicText.java public class DynamicText implements Publisher{ // implements Publisher interface methods //notify listeners whenever text changes } Isn't this a violation of Single Responsibility Principle where my Applet not only acts as Applet but also has to do Listener job. Same way DynamicText class not only generates the dynamic text but updates the registered listeners. Design 2: //MyApplet.java public class MyApplet extends Applet{ private AppletListener appLstnr = null; public void init(){ appLstnr = new AppletListener(this); // applet stuff } } // AppletListener.java public class AppletListener implements Listener{ private Applet applet = null; public AppletListener(Applet applet){ this.applet = applet; } public void update(){ this.applet.repaint(); } } // DynamicText public class DynamicText{ private TextPublisher textPblshr = null; public DynamicText(TextPublisher txtPblshr){ this.textPblshr = txtPblshr; } // call textPblshr.notifyListeners whenever text changes } public class TextPublisher implments Publisher{ // implements publisher interface methods } Q1. Is design 1 a SPR violation? Q2. Is composition a better choice here to remove SPR violation as in design 2.

    Read the article

  • Naming convention for non-virtual and abstract methods

    - by eagle
    I frequently find myself creating classes which use this form (A): abstract class Animal { public void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass WalkInternal(); // TODO: do something after walking } protected abstract void WalkInternal(); } class Dog : Animal { protected override void WalkInternal() { // TODO: walk with 4 legs } } class Bird : Animal { protected override void WalkInternal() { // TODO: walk with 2 legs } } Rather than this form (B): abstract class Animal { public abstract void Walk(); } class Dog : Animal { public override void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass // TODO: walk with 4 legs // TODO: do something after walking } } class Bird : Animal { public override void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass // TODO: walk with 2 legs // TODO: do something after walking } } As you can see, the nice thing about form A is that every time you implement a subclass, you don't need to remember to include the initialization and finalization logic. This is much less error prone than form B. What's a standard convention for naming these methods? I like naming the public method Walk since then I can call Dog.Walk() which looks better than something like Dog.WalkExternal(). However, I don't like my solution of adding the suffix "Internal" for the protected method. I'm looking for a more standardized name. Btw, is there a name for this design pattern?

    Read the article

  • How would you organize this Javascript?

    - by Anurag
    How do you usually organize complex web applications that are extremely rich on the client side. I have created a contrived example to indicate the kind of mess it's easy to get into if things are not managed well for big apps. Feel free to modify/extend this example as you wish - http://jsfiddle.net/NHyLC/1/ The example basically mirrors part of the comment posting on SO, and follows the following rules: Must have 15 characters minimum, after multiple spaces are trimmed out to one. If Add Comment is clicked, but the size is less than 15 after removing multiple spaces, then show a popup with the error. Indicate amount of characters remaining and summarize with color coding. Gray indicates a small comment, brown indicates a medium comment, orange a large comment, and red a comment overflow. One comment can only be submitted every 15 seconds. If comment is submitted too soon, show a popup with appropriate error message. A couple of issues I noticed with this example. This should ideally be a widget or some sort of packaged functionality. Things like a comment per 15 seconds, and minimum 15 character comment belong to some application wide policies rather than being embedded inside each widget. Too many hard-coded values. No code organization. Model, Views, Controllers are all bundled together. Not that MVC is the only approach for organizing rich client side web applications, but there is none in this example. How would you go about cleaning this up? Applying a little MVC/MVP along the way? Here's some of the relevant functions, but it will make more sense if you saw the entire code on jsfiddle: /** * Handle comment change. * Update character count. * Indicate progress */ function handleCommentUpdate(comment) { var status = $('.comment-status'); status.text(getStatusText(comment)); status.removeClass('mild spicy hot sizzling'); status.addClass(getStatusClass(comment)); } /** * Is the comment valid for submission */ function commentSubmittable(comment) { var notTooSoon = !isTooSoon(); var notEmpty = !isEmpty(comment); var hasEnoughCharacters = !isTooShort(comment); return notTooSoon && notEmpty && hasEnoughCharacters; } // submit comment $('.add-comment').click(function() { var comment = $('.comment-box').val(); // submit comment, fake ajax call if(commentSubmittable(comment)) { .. } // show a popup if comment is mostly spaces if(isTooShort(comment)) { if(comment.length < 15) { // blink status message } else { popup("Comment must be at least 15 characters in length."); } } // show a popup is comment submitted too soon else if(isTooSoon()) { popup("Only 1 comment allowed per 15 seconds."); } });

    Read the article

  • Tracking the user function that threw the exception

    - by makerofthings7
    I've been given a large application with only one try..catch at the outer most level. This application also throws exceptions all the time, and is poorly documented. Is there any pattern I can implement that will tell me what user method is being called, the exception being thrown, and also the count of exceptions? I'm thinking of using a dictionary with reflection to get the needed information, but I'm not sure if this will work. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • What's the best practice way to convert enum to string?

    - by dario
    Hi. I have enum like this: public enum ObectTypes { TypeOne, TypeTwo, TypeThree, ... TypeTwenty } then I need to convert this enum to string. Now Im doing this that way: public string ConvertToCustomTypeName(ObjectTypes typeObj) { string result = string.Empty; switch (typeObj) { case ObjectTypes.TypeOne: result = "This is type T123"; break; case ObjectTypes.TypeTwo: result = "This is type T234"; break; ... case ObjectTypes.TypeTwenty: result = "This is type last"; break; } return result; } Im quite sure that there is better way do do this, Im looking for some good practice solution. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Where UnityContainerElement in Unity 2?

    - by TheAbdalla
    I was in Unity 1.2, use the following code: UnityConfigurationSection UnitySection = (UnityConfigurationSection)ConfigurationManager.GetSection("Unity"); Dictionary<string, IUnityContainer> Containers = new Dictionary<string, IUnityContainer>(); foreach (UnityContainerElement element in UnitySection.Containers) { IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer(); Containers.Add(element.Name, container); element.Configure(Containers[element.Name]); } but, I couldn't do so in the Unity 2.0 beta2, because The class 'UnityContainerElement' does not exist in Unity 2 beta2. How can I do this in the new version?

    Read the article

  • What is the basic pattern for using (N)Hibernate?

    - by Vilx-
    I'm creating a simple Windows Forms application with NHibernate and I'm a bit confused about how I'm supposed to use it. To quote the manual: ISession (NHibernate.ISession) A single-threaded, short-lived object representing a conversation between the application and the persistent store. Wraps an ADO.NET connection. Factory for ITransaction. Holds a mandatory (first-level) cache of persistent objects, used when navigating the object graph or looking up objects by identifier. Now, suppose I have the following scenario: I have a simple classifier which is a MSSQL table with two columns - ID (auto_increment) and Name (nvarchar). To edit this classifier I create a form which contains a single gridview and two buttons - OK and Cancel. The user can nearly directly edit the table in the gridview, and when he hits OK the changes he made are persisted to the DB (or if he hits cancel, nothing happens). Now, I have several questions about how to organize this: What should the lifetime of my ISession be? Should I create a single ISession for my whole application; an ISession for each of my forms (the application is single-threaded MDI); or an ISession for every DB operation/transaction? Does NHibernate offer some kind of built-in dirty tracking or must I do this myself? The manual mentions something like it here and there but does not go into details. How is this done? Is there not a huge overhead? Is it somehow tied with the cache(s) that NHibernate has? What are these caches for? Are they not specific to a single ISession? That is, if I use a seperate ISession for every transaction, won't it break the dirty tracking? How does the built-in dirty tracking detect deleted objects?

    Read the article

  • How to restrict access to a class's data based on state?

    - by Marcus Swope
    In an ETL application I am working on, we have three basic processes: Validate and parse an XML file of customer information from a third party Match values received in the file to values in our system Load customer data in our system The issue here is that we may need to display the customer information from any or all of the above states to an internal user and there is data in our customer class that will never be populated before the values have been matched in our system (step 2). For this reason, I would like to have the values not even be available to be accessed when the customer is in this state, and I would like to have to avoid some repeated logic everywhere like: if (customer.IsMatched) DisplayTextOnWeb(customer.SomeMatchedValue); My first thought for this was to add a couple interfaces on top of Customer that would only expose the properties and behaviors of the current state, and then only deal with those interfaces. The problem with this approach is that there seems to be no good way to move from an ICustomerWithNoMatchedValues to an ICustomerWithMatchedValues without doing direct casts, etc... (or at least I can't find one). I can't be the first to have come across this, how do you normally approach this? As a last caveat, I would like for this solution to play nice with FluentNHibernate :) Thanks in advance...

    Read the article

  • What is the most stupid coded solution you have read/improved/witnessed?

    - by Rigo Vides
    And for stupid I mean Illogical, non-effective, complex(the bad way), ugly code style. I will start: We had a requirement there when we needed to hide certain objects given the press of a button. So this framework we were using at the time provided a way to tag objects and retrieve all the objects with a certain tag in a complete iterable collection. So I presented the most logically solution given these conditions to my partner: Me: you know, tag all the objects we needed to hide with the same tag, then call the function to get them all, iterate trough them and make them hidden. Partner: I don't know, that is hardcoding for me... Me: So what do you suggest? 20 mins later... Partner: I don't know... let's put a tag to all the objects to be hidden like this, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (and so for each object to be hidden), Then we make a for from 1 to n (where n was the number of objects to hide) and we hide them all there!

    Read the article

  • Practical rules for premature optimization

    - by DougW
    It seems that the phrase "Premature Optimization" is the buzz-word of the day. For some reason, iphone programmers in particular seem to think of avoiding premature optimization as a pro-active goal, rather than the natural result of simply avoiding distraction. The problem is, the term is beginning to be applied more and more to cases that are completely inappropriate. For example, I've seen a growing number of people say not to worry about the complexity of an algorithm, because that's premature optimization (eg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190275/help-sorting-an-nsarray-across-two-properties-with-nssortdescriptor/2191720#2191720). Frankly, I think this is just laziness, and appalling to disciplined computer science. But it has occurred to me that maybe considering the complexity and performance of algorithms is going the way of assembly loop unrolling, and other optimization techniques that are now considered unnecessary. What do you think? Are we at the point now where deciding between an O(n^n) and O(n!) complexity algorithm is irrelevant? What about O(n) vs O(n*n)? What do you consider "premature optimization"? What practical rules do you use to consciously or unconsciously avoid it? This is a bit vague, but I'm curious to hear other peoples' opinions on the topic.

    Read the article

  • actionscript-3: refactor interface inheritance to get rid of ambiguous reference error

    - by maxmc
    hi! imagine there are two interfaces arranged via composite pattern, one of them has a dispose method among other methods: interface IComponent extends ILeaf { ... function dispose() : void; } interface ILeaf { ... } some implementations have some more things in common (say an id) so there are two more interfaces: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf { function get id() : String; } interface ICommonComponent extends ICommonLeaf, IComponent { } so far so good. but there is another interface which also has a dispose method: interface ISomething { ... function dispose() : void; } and ISomething is inherited by ICommonLeaf: interface ICommonLeaf extends ILeaf, ISomething { function get id() : String; } As soon as the dispose method is invoked on an instance which implements the ICommonComponent interface, the compiler fails with an ambiguous reference error because ISomething has a method called dispose and ILeaf also has a dispose method, both living in different interfaces (IComponent, ISomething) within the inheritace tree of ICommonComponent. I wonder how to deal with the situation if the IComponent, the ILeaf and the ISomething can't change. the composite structure must also work for for the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent implementations and the ICommonLeaf & ICommonComponent must conform to the ISomething type. this might be an actionscript-3 specific issue. i haven't tested how other languages (for instance java) handle stuff like this.

    Read the article

  • Command Pattern : How to pass parameters to a command ?

    - by Romain Verdier
    My question is related to the command pattern, where we have the following abstraction (C# code) : public interface ICommand { Execute(); } Let's take a simple concrete command, which aims to delete an entity from our application. A Person instance, for example. I'll have a DeletePersonCommand, which implements ICommand. This command needs the Person to delete as a parameter, in order to delete it when Execute method is called. What is the best way to manage parametrized commands ? How to pass parameters to commands, before executing them ?

    Read the article

  • Initialization of components with interdependencies - possible antipattern?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm writing a game that has many components. Many of these are dependent upon one another. When creating them, I often get into catch-22 situations like "WorldState's constructor requires a PathPlanner, but PathPlanner's constructor requires WorldState." Originally, this was less of a problem, because references to everything needed were kept around in GameEngine, and GameEngine was passed around to everything. But I didn't like the feel of that, because it felt like we were giving too much access to different components, making it harder to enforce boundaries. Here is the problematic code: /// <summary> /// Constructor to create a new instance of our game. /// </summary> public GameEngine() { graphics = new GraphicsDeviceManager(this); Components.Add(new GamerServicesComponent(this)); //Sets dimensions of the game window graphics.PreferredBackBufferWidth = 800; graphics.PreferredBackBufferHeight = 600; graphics.ApplyChanges(); IsMouseVisible = true; screenManager = new ScreenManager(this); //Adds ScreenManager as a component, making all of its calls done automatically Components.Add(screenManager); // Tell the program to load all files relative to the "Content" directory. Assets = new CachedContentLoader(this, "Content"); inputReader = new UserInputReader(Constants.DEFAULT_KEY_MAPPING); collisionRecorder = new CollisionRecorder(); WorldState = new WorldState(new ReadWriteXML(), Constants.CONFIG_URI, this, contactReporter); worldQueryUtils = new WorldQueryUtils(worldQuery, WorldState.PhysicsWorld); ContactReporter contactReporter = new ContactReporter(collisionRecorder, worldQuery, worldQueryUtils); gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; pathPlanner = new PathPlanner(this, worldQueryUtils, WorldQuery); gameObjectManager.PathPlanner = pathPlanner; combatEngine = new CombatEngine(worldQuery, new Random()); } Here is an excerpt of the above that's problematic: gameObjectManager = new GameObjectManager(WorldState, assets, inputReader, pathPlanner); worldQuery = new DefaultWorldQueryEngine(collisionRecorder, gameObjectManager.Controllers); gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine = worldQuery; I hope that no one ever forgets that setting of gameObjectManager.WorldQueryEngine, or else it will fail. Here is the problem: gameObjectManager needs a WorldQuery, and WorldQuery needs a property of gameObjectManager. What can I do about this? Have I found an anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • In a PHP project, how do you organize and access your helper objects?

    - by Pekka
    How do you organize and manage your helper objects like the database engine, user notification, error handling and so on in a PHP based, object oriented project? Say I have a large PHP CMS. The CMS is organized in various classes. A few examples: the database object user management an API to create/modify/delete items a messaging object to display messages to the end user a context handler that takes you to the right page a navigation bar class that shows buttons a logging object possibly, custom error handling etc. I am dealing with the eternal question, how to best make these objects accessible to each part of the system that needs it. my first apporach, many years ago was to have a $application global that contained initialized instances of these classes. global $application; $application->messageHandler->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); I then changed over to the Singleton pattern and a factory function: $mh =&factory("messageHandler"); $mh->addMessage("Item successfully inserted"); but I'm not happy with that either. Unit tests and encapsulation become more and more important to me, and in my understanding the logic behind globals/singletons destroys the basic idea of OOP. Then there is of course the possibility of giving each object a number of pointers to the helper objects it needs, probably the very cleanest, resource-saving and testing-friendly way but I have doubts about the maintainability of this in the long run. Most PHP frameworks I have looked into use either the singleton pattern, or functions that access the initialized objects. Both fine approaches, but as I said I'm happy with neither. I would like to broaden my horizon on what is possible here and what others have done. I am looking for examples, additional ideas and pointers towards resources that discuss this from a long-term, real-world perspective. Also, I'm interested to hear about specialized, niche or plain weird approaches to the issue. Bounty I am following the popular vote in awarding the bounty, the answer which is probably also going to give me the most. Thank you for all your answers!

    Read the article

  • C# unusual inheritance syntax w/ generics

    - by anon
    I happened upon this in an NHibernate class definition: public class SQLiteConfiguration : PersistenceConfiguration<SQLiteConfiguration> So this class inherits from a base class that is parameterized by... the derived class?   My head just exploded. Can someone explain what this means and how this pattern is useful? (This is NOT an NHibernate-specific question, by the way.)

    Read the article

  • How to code for Alternate Course AKA Rainy Day Scenary?

    - by janetsmith
    Alternate course is something when user doesn't do what you expected, e.g. key in wrong password, pressing back button, or database error. For any programming project, alternate course accounts for more than 50% of a project timeline. It is important. However, most computer books only focus on Basic Course (when everything goes fine). Basic course is rather simple, compared to Alternate course, because this is normally given by client. Alternate course is what we, as a programmer or Business Analyst needs to take care of. Java has some built-in mechanism (try-catch) to force us to handle those unexpected behavior. The question is, how to handle them? Any pattern to follow? Any guideline or industry practice for handling alternate course?

    Read the article

  • How do i structure my SQL Database (tables, Schemas, users, stored procedures etc.) to prepare it fo

    - by AlexRednic
    I think the title is self explanatory. What I'm looking for is material so I can further my knowledge. I've never developed a full application before so building one from scratch is a bit overwhelming for me. And the first bump in the road is the database. Websites, articles, books, elaborate answers, anything will do as long as they keep me on the right track. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to make a jQuery plugin (the right way)?

    - by macek
    I know there are jQuery cookie plugins out there, but I wanted to write one for the sake of better learning the jQuery plugin pattern. I like the separation of "work" in small, manageable functions, but I feel like I'm passing name, value, and options arguments around too much. Is there a way this can be refactored? I'm looking for snippets of code to help illustrate examples provided with in answers. Any help is appreciated. Thanks :) example usage $.cookie('foo', 'bar', {expires:7}); $.cookie('foo'); //=> bar $.cookie('foo', null); $.cookie('foo'); //=> undefined Edit: I did a little bit of work on this. You can view the revision history to see where this has come from. It still feels like more refactoring can be done to optimize the flow a bit. Any ideas? the plugin (function($){ $.cookie = function(name, value, options) { if (typeof value == 'undefined') { return get(name); } else { options = $.extend({}, $.cookie.defaults, options || {}); return (value != null) ? set(name, value, options) : unset(name, options); } }; $.cookie.defaults = { expires: null, path: '/', domain: null, secure: false }; var set = function(name, value, options){ console.log(options); return document.cookie = options_string(name, value, options); }; var get = function(name){ var cookies = {}; $.map(document.cookie.split(';'), function(pair){ var c = $.trim(pair).split('='); cookies[c[0]] = c[1]; }); return decodeURIComponent(cookies[name]); }; var unset = function(name, options){ value = ''; options.expires = -1; set(name, value, options); }; var options_string = function(name, value, options){ var pairs = [param.name(name, value)]; $.each(options, function(k,v){ pairs.push(param[k](v)); }); return $.map(pairs, function(p){ return p === null ? null : p; }).join(';'); }; var param = { name: function(name, value){ return name + "=" + encodeURIComponent(value); }, expires: function(value){ // no expiry if(value === null){ return null; } // number of days else if(typeof value == "number"){ d = new Date(); d.setTime(d.getTime() + (value * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000)); } // date object else if(typeof value == "object" && value instanceof "Date") { d = value; } return "expires=" + d.toUTCString(); }, path: function(value){ return "path="+value; }, domain: function(value){ return value === null ? null : "domain=" + value; }, secure: function(bool){ return bool ? "secure" : null; } }; })(jQuery);

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >