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 181/348 | < Previous Page | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >

  • Best practice for avoiding locks on a heavily read table?

    - by Luiggi
    Hi, I have a big database (~4GB), with 2 large tables (~3M records) having ~180K SELECTs/hour, ~2k UPDATEs/hour and ~1k INSERTs+DELETEs/hour. What would be the best practice to guarantee no locks for the reading tasks while inserting/updating/deleting? I was thinking about using a NOLOCK hint, but there is so much discussed about this (is good, is bad, it depends) that I'm a bit lost. I must say I've tried this in a dev environment and I didn't find any problems, but I don't want to put it on production until I get some feedback... Thank you! Luiggi

    Read the article

  • What is the sense of "Feature Oriented Programming" (FOP) in C++, and would it make sense in Java an

    - by ivan_ivanovich_ivanoff
    Hello! Sadly, I can't remember where I read it, but... ...in C++ you can derive a class from a template parameter. Im pretty sure it was called Feature Oriented Programming (FOP) and meant to be somehow useful. It was something like: template <class T> class my_class : T { // some very useful stuff goes here ;) } My questions about this: What is the sense of such pattern? Since this it not possible in Java / C#, how this pattern is achieved in these languages? Can it be expected to be implemented in Java / C# one day? (Well, first Java would need to get rid of type erasure) EDIT: I'm really not talking about generics in Java / C# (where you can't derive a class from a generic type parameter)

    Read the article

  • Are memory leaks ever ok?

    - by Imbue
    Is it ever acceptable to have a memory leak in your C or C++ application? What if you allocate some memory and use it until the very last line of code in your application (for example, a global object's deconstructor)? As long as the memory consumption doesn't grow over time, is it OK to trust the OS to free your memory for you when your application terminates (on Windows, Mac, and Linux)? Would you even consider this a real memory leak if the memory was being used continuously until it was freed by the OS. What if a third party library forced this situation on you? Would refuse to use that third party library no matter how great it otherwise might be? I only see one practical disadvantage, and that is that these benign leaks will show up with memory leak detection tools as false positives.

    Read the article

  • benefit of having a factory for object creation?

    - by ajsie
    I'm trying to understand the factory design pattern. I don't understand why it's good to have a middleman between the client and the product (object that the client wants). example with no factory: $mac = new Mac(); example with a factory: $appleStore = new AppleStore(); $mac = $appleStore->getProduct('mac'); How does the factory pattern decouple the client from the product? Could someone give an example of a future code change that will impact on example 1 negative, but positive in example 2 so I understand the importance of decoupling? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • When using out parameters in a function, is it good practice to initialize them in the function?

    - by adambox
    I have a function that uses out parameters to return multiple values to the caller. I would like to initialize them in the function, but I wasn't sure if that's a bad idea since you don't know when you call the function that it's going to change the values right away. The caller might assume that after the function returns, if whatever it was doing didn't work, the values would be whatever they were initialized to in the caller. Is it ok / good for me to initialize in the function? Example: public static void SomeFunction(int ixID, out string sSomething) { sSomething = ""; sSomething = something(ixID); if (sSomething = "") { somethingelse(); sSomething = "bar" } }

    Read the article

  • Will this be garbage collected in JVM?

    - by stjowa
    I am running the following code every two minutes via a Timer: object = new Object(this); Potentially, this is a lot of objects being created and a lot of objects being overwritten. Do the overwritten objects get garbage collected, even with a reference to itself being used in the newly created object? I am using JDK 1.6.0_13. Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • Implement abstract class as a local class? pros and cons

    - by sinec
    Hi, for some reason I'm thinking on implementing interface within a some function(method) as local class. Consider following: class A{ public: virtual void MethodToOverride() = 0; }; A * GetPtrToAImplementation(){ class B : public A { public: B(){} ~B(){} void MethodToOverride() { //do something } }; return static_cast<A *>(new B()); } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { A * aInst = GetPtrToAImplementation(); aInst->MethodToOverride(); delete aInst; return 0; } the reason why I'm doing this are: I'm lazy to implement class (B) in separate files MethodToOverride just delegates call to other class Class B shouldn't be visible to other users no need to worry about deleting aInst since smart pointers are used in real implementation So my question is if I'm doing this right? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Which design pattern fits - strategy makes sense ?

    - by user554833
    --Bump *One desperate try to get someone's attention I have a simple database table that stores list of users who have subscribed to folders either by email OR to show up on the site (only on the web UI). In the storage table this is controlled by a number(1 - show on site 2- by email). When I am showing in UI I need to show a checkbox next to each of folders for which the user has subscribed (both email & on site). There is a separate table which stores a set of default subscriptions which would apply to each user if user has not expressed his subscription. This is basically a folder ID and a virtual group name. But, Email subscriptions do not count for applying these default groups. So if no "on site" subscription apply default group. Thats the rule. How about a strategy pattern here (Pseudo code) Interface ISubscription public ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionWithoutDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) Public class SubscriptionOnlyDefaultGroup Implement ArrayList GetSubscriptionData(Pass query object) does this even make sense? I would be more than glad for receive any criticism / help / notes. I am learning. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Assignment in conditional operator

    - by DuoSRX
    I've seen a lot this kind of code recently : if ($foo = $bar->getFoo()) { baz($foo); } Is this considered good or bad practice ? For example, Netbeans IDE give a notice if you use this kind of code : Possible accidental assignment, assignments in conditions should be avoided What do you think ?

    Read the article

  • Boost shared_ptr use_count function

    - by photo_tom
    My application problem is the following - I have a large structure foo. Because these are large and for memory management reasons, we do not wish to delete them when processing on the data is complete. We are storing them in std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<foo>>. My question is related to knowing when all processing is complete. First decision is that we do not want any of the other application code to mark a complete flag in the structure because there are multiple execution paths in the program and we cannot predict which one is the last. So in our implementation, once processing is complete, we delete all copies of boost::shared_ptr<foo>> except for the one in the vector. This will drop the reference counter in the shared_ptr to 1. Is it practical to use shared_ptr.use_count() to see if it is equal to 1 to know when all other parts of my app are done with the data. One additional reason I'm asking the question is that the boost documentation on the shared pointer shared_ptr recommends not using "use_count" for production code.

    Read the article

  • UI Design - design pattern for city/country drop down? (ASP.NET MVC)

    - by JK
    What is the best way to do a city/country dropdown pair in ASP.NET MVC? I see lots of places with country above city, but that's unnatural: in real life we write city/country. I've used city, then country, but the problem is that the user then has to go backwards after changing the country. The other problem is what do you do about cities/countries not in your list? If city/country are both drop downs, then the user cant type their own city if it is missing. But if you have a dropdown and a textbox, that makes it unwieldy (you end up with 4 controls to enter 2 pieces of data). Are there any examples websites where the city/country dropdown pair are done in a very useable and clear manner?

    Read the article

  • Sequential coupling in code

    - by dotnetdev
    Hi, Is sequential coupling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_coupling) really a bad thing in code? Although it's an anti-pattern, the only risk I see is calling methods in the wrong order but documentation of an API/class library with this anti-pattern should take care of that. What other problems are there from code which is sequential? Also, this pattern could easily be fixed by using a facade it seems. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should I go back and fix work when you learn something new/better?

    - by SnOrfus
    Considering that we're all constantly learning, we've all got to come across a point where we learn something just awesome that improves our code or parts of it significantly. The question is, when you've learned some new technique, strategy or whatever, do your or should you go back to code that you know works, but could be so much better/maintainable/faster/generally improved and implement this new knowledge? I understand the concept of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" but when does that become losing pride in code you've already written and what does it say for refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Flexible array members in C - bad?

    - by Lionel
    I recently read that using flexible array members in C was poor software engineering practice. However, that statement was not backed by any argument. Is this an accepted fact? (Flexible array members are a C feature introduced in C99 whereby one can declare the last element to be an array of unspecified size. For example: ) struct header { size_t len; unsigned char data[]; };

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to violate the principle that collection properties should be readonly for performance?

    - by uriDium
    I used FxCop to analyze some code I had written. I had exposed a collection via a setter. I understand why this is not good. Changing the backing store when I don't expect it is a very bad idea. Here is my problem though. I retrieve a list of business objects from a Data Access Object. I then need to add that collection to another business class and I was doing it with the setter method. The reason I did this was that it is going to be faster to make an assignment than to insert hundreds of thousands of objects one at a time to the collection again via another addElement method. Is it okay to have a getter for a collection in some scenarios? I though of rather having a constructor which takes a collection? I thought maybe I could pass the object in to the Dao and let the Dao populate it directly? Are there any other better ideas?

    Read the article

  • Why is 'using namespace std;' considered a bad practice in C++?

    - by Mana
    Okay, sorry for the simplistic question, but this has been bugging me ever since I finished high school C++ last year. I've been told by others on numerous occasions that my teacher was wrong in saying that we should have "using namespace std;" in our programs, and that std::cout and std::cin are more proper. However, they would always be vague as to why this is a bad practice. So, I'm asking now: Why is "using namespace std;" considered bad? Is it really that inefficient, or risk declaring ambiguous vars(variables that share the same name as a function in std namespace) that much? Or does this impact program performance noticeably as you get into writing larger applications? I'm sorry if this is something I should have googled to solve; I figured it would be nice to have this question on here regardless in case anyone else was wondering.

    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 | 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188  | Next Page >