Search Results

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

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

  • How to implement the disposable pattern in a class that inherits from another disposable class?

    - by TheRHCP
    Hi, I often used the disposable pattern in simple classes that referenced small amount of resources, but I never had to implement this pattern on a class that inherits from another disposable class and I am starting to be a bit confused in how to free the whole resources. I start with a little sample code: public class Tracer : IDisposable { bool disposed; FileStream fileStream; public Tracer() { //Some fileStream initialization } public void Dispose() { this.Dispose(true); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!disposed) { if (disposing) { if (fileStream != null) { fileStream.Dispose(); } } disposed = true; } } } public class ServiceWrapper : Tracer { bool disposed; ServiceHost serviceHost; //Some properties public ServiceWrapper () { //Some serviceHost initialization } //protected override void Dispose(bool disposing) //{ // if (!disposed) // { // if (disposing) // { // if (serviceHost != null) // { // serviceHost.Close(); // } // } // disposed = true; // } //} } My real question is: how to implement the disposable pattern inside my ServiceWrapper class to be sure that when I will dispose an instance of it, it will dispose resources in both inherited and base class? Thanks.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Call a non member function on an instance before is constructed.

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone. I'm writing a class, and this doubt came up. Is this undef. behaviour? On the other hand, I'm not sure its recommended, or if its a good practice. Is it one if I ensure no exceptions to be thrown in the init function? //c.h class C{ float vx,vy; friend void init(C& c); public: C(); }; //c.cpp C::C() { init(*this); } void init(C& c) //throws() to ensure no exceptions ? { c.vx = 0; c.vy = 0; } Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Problem understanding Inheritance

    - by dhruvbird
    I've been racking my brains over inheritance for a while now, but am still not completely able to get around it. For example, the other day I was thinking about relating an Infallible Human and a Fallible Human. Let's first define the two: Infallible Human: A human that can never make a mistake. It's do_task() method will never throw an exception Fallible Human: A human that will occasionally make a mistakes. It's do_task() method may occasionally throw a ErrorProcessingRequest Exception The question was: IS an infallible human A fallible human OR IS a fallible human AN infallible human? The very nice answer I received was in the form of a question (I love these since it gives me rules to answer future questions I may have). "Can you pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected OR can you pass a fallible human where an infallible human is expected?" It seems apparent that you can pass an infallible human where a fallible human is expected, but not the other way around. I guess that answered my question. However, it still feels funny saying "An infallible human is a fallible human". Does anyone else feel queasy when they say it? It almost feels as if speaking out inheritance trees is like reading out statements from propositional calculus in plain English (the if/then implication connectives don't mean the same as that in spoken English). Does anyone else feel the same?

    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

  • 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

  • Tracking user changes in ASP.NET MVC

    - by Ian Roke
    I have a requirement to track what authenticated users change with regards to the data when logged in. I don't need to track what pages they look at although that could be very useful in future. I have thought about saving the User Guid but that seems very clunky. Are there other methods/best practises?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to initialize a variable to a dummy value?

    - by froadie
    This question is a result of the answers to this question that I just asked. It was claimed that this code is "ugly" because it initializes a variable to a value that will never be read: String tempName = null; try{ tempName = buildFileName(); } catch(Exception e){ ... System.exit(1); } FILE_NAME = tempName; Is this indeed bad practice? Should one avoid initializing variables to dummy values that will never actually be used? (EDIT - And what about initializing a String variable to "" before a loop that will concatenate values to the String...? Or is this in a separate category? e.g. String whatever = ""; for(String str : someCollection){ whatever += str; } )

    Read the article

  • Need help in sorting the programming buzz-words

    - by cwap
    How do you sort out the good buzz from the bad buzz? - I really need your help here :) I see a lot of buzz-words nowadays, both here on SO and in school. For example, we had a teacher who everyone respected, who said "be careful about gold-plating and death-by-interfacing". Now, everyone and their mama cries whenever I'm creating an interface.. Another example would be here on SO where lately "premature optimization is the root of all evil", so everytime someone asks a perfomance question, he'll get that sentence thrown in his face. A few months ago I remember it was all about NHibernate in here, etc., etc... These things comes and goes, but only the good buzz stays. Now, how do you seperate the good from the bad? By reading blogs from respected persons? By trying to come to a conclusion on your own, and then try to convince others that you're right? By simply ignoring it?

    Read the article

  • SQL - when should you use "with (nolock)"

    - by Andy White
    Can someone explain the implications of using "with (nolock)" on queries, when you should/shouldn't use it? For example, if you have a banking application with high transaction rates and a lot of data in certain tables, in what types of queries would nolock be okay? Are there cases when you should always use it/never use it?

    Read the article

  • My User control belonging to which Design Pattern??

    - by prashant
    Hello, I am creating a reusable component in C#.net. For that i have started a Control Library project and added a Control. Class MyControl : Control{} My user control just displays some images which will be used in many Windows Applications. Can you please tell me which design pattern i am using here. I am unable to decide which pattern they belongs. Thanks

    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

  • Best way to make an attribute always an array?

    - by Shadowfirebird
    I'm using my MOO project to teach myself Test Driven Design, and it's taking me interesting places. For example, I wrote a test that said an attribute on a particular object should always return an array, so -- t = Thing.new("test") p t.names #-> ["test"] t.names = nil p t.names #-> [] The code I have for this is okay, but it doesn't seem terribly ruby to me: class Thing def initialize(names) self.names = names end def names=(n) n = [] if n.nil? n = [n] unless n.instance_of?(Array) @names = n end attr_reader :names end Is there a more elegant, Ruby-ish way of doing this? (NB: if anyone wants to tell me why this is a dumb test to write, that would be interesting too...)

    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

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