Search Results

Search found 17731 results on 710 pages for 'programming practices'.

Page 199/710 | < Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >

  • How to synchronize static method in java.

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

    Read the article

  • Haskell function composition (.) and function application ($) idioms: correct use.

    - by Robert Massaioli
    I have been reading Real World Haskell and I am nearing the end but a matter of style has been niggling at me to do with the (.) and ($) operators. When you write a function that is a composition of other functions you write it like: f = g . h But when you apply something to the end of those functions I write it like this: k = a $ b $ c $ value But the book would write it like this: k = a . b . c $ value Now to me they look functionally equivalent, they do the exact same thing in my eyes. However, the more I look, the more I see people writing their functions in the manner that the book does: compose with (.) first and then only at the end use ($) to append a value to evaluate the lot (nobody does it with many dollar compositions). Is there a reason for using the books way that is much better than using all ($) symbols? Or is there some best practice here that I am not getting? Or is it superfluous and I shouldn't be worrying about it at all? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What's the preferred way to use helper methods in Ruby?

    - by DR
    Disclaimer: Although I'm asking in context of a Rails application, I'm not talking about Rails helpers (i.e. view helpers) Let's say I have a helper method/function: def dispatch_job(job = {}) #Do something end Now I want to use this from several places (mostly controllers, but also a few BackgrounDRb workers) What's the preferred way to do this? I can think of two possibilities: 1. Use a class and make the helper a static method: class MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker def run MyHelper.dispatch_job(...) end end 2. Use a module and include the method into whatever class I need this functionality module MyHelper def self.dispatch_job(job = {}) end end class MyWorker include MyHelper def run dispatch_job(...) end end 3. Other possibilities I don't know yet ... The first one is more Java-like, but I'm not sure if the second one is really an appropriate use of Ruby's modules.

    Read the article

  • how to tackle a new project

    - by stevo
    Hi, I have a question about best practice on how to tackle a new project, any project. When starting a new project how do you go about tackling the project, do you split it into sections, start writing code, draw up flow diagrams. I'm asking this question because I'm looking for advice on how I can start new projects so I can get going on them quicker. I can have it planned, designed and starting coding with everything worked out. Any advice? Thanks Stephen

    Read the article

  • how should i create my own 'now' / DateTime.Now ?

    - by Michel
    Hi all, i'm starting to build a part of a system which will hold a lot of DateTime validations, and a lot of 'if it was done before now' or 'if it will start in an hour etc'. Usual way to go is to use DateTime.Now to get the actual time. I predict however, that during unit test that will give me a real headache because i will have to setup my testdata for the time when the test will run in stead of use a default set of test data. So i thought: why not use my own 'now' so i can set the current datetime to any moment in time. As i don't want to set the testservers internal clock i was thinking about this solution, and i was wondering what you think of it. Base thought is that i use my own DateTime class. That class gives you the current datetime, but you can also set your own time from outside. public static class MyDateTime { private static TimeSpan _TimeDifference = TimeSpan.Zero; public static DateTime Now { get { return DateTime.Now + _TimeDifference; } } public static void SetNewNow(DateTime newNow) { _TimeDifference = newNow - DateTime.Now; } public static void AddToRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan ) { _TimeDifference = timeSpan; } public static void SubtractFromRealTime(TimeSpan timeSpan) { _TimeDifference = - timeSpan; } }

    Read the article

  • Using typedefs (or #defines) on built in types - any sensible reason?

    - by jb
    Well I'm doing some Java - C integration, and throught C library werid type mappings are used (theres more of them;)): #define CHAR char /* 8 bit signed int */ #define SHORT short /* 16 bit signed int */ #define INT int /* "natural" length signed int */ #define LONG long /* 32 bit signed int */ typedef unsigned char BYTE; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned char UCHAR; /* 8 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned short USHORT; /* 16 bit unsigned int */ typedef unsigned int UINT; /* "natural" length unsigned int*/ Is there any legitimate reason not to use them? It's not like char is going to be redefined anytime soon. I can think of: Writing platform/compiler portable code (size of type is underspecified in C/C++) Saving space and time on embedded systems - if you loop over array shorter than 255 on 8bit microprocessor writing: for(uint8_t ii = 0; ii < len; ii++) will give meaureable speedup.

    Read the article

  • Elegant solution for line-breaks (PHP)

    - by Nimbuz
    $var = "Hi there"."<br/>"."Welcome to my website"."<br/>;" echo $var; Is there an elegant way to handle line-breaks in PHP? I'm not sure about other languages, but C++ has eol so something thats more readable and elegant to use? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Repository Design Pattern Guidance

    - by thefactor
    Let's say you have an MVVM CRM application. You have a number of customer objects in memory, through a repository. What would be the appropriate place to handle tasks that aren't associated with traditional MVVM tasks from a GUI? For example, let's say every few minutes you want to check to see if their address is valid and pop up a notification if it is not. Or you want to send out an hourly e-mail update. Or you want a window to pop up to remind you to call a customer at a specific time. Where does this logic go? It's not GUI/action-oriented, and it's not logic that would be appropriate for a repository, I think.

    Read the article

  • How can I determine/use $(this) in js callback script

    - by Rabbott
    I am using Rails and jQuery, making an ajax call initiated by clicking a link. I setup my application.js file to look like the one proposed here and it works great. The problem I'm having is how can I use $(this) in my say.. update.js.erb file to represent the link I clicked? I don't want to have to assign an ID to every one, then recompile that id in the callback script.. EDIT To give a simple example of something similar to what I'm trying to do (and much easier to explain): If a user clicks on a link, that deletes that element from a list, the controller would handle the callback, and the callback (which is in question here) would delete the element I clicked on, so in the callback delete.js.erb would just say $(this).fadeOut(); This is why I want to use $(this) so that I dont have to assign an ID to every element (which would be the end of the world, just more verbose markup) application.js jQuery.ajaxSetup({ 'beforeSend': function(xhr) {xhr.setRequestHeader("Accept", "text/javascript,application/javascript,text/html")} }) function _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, method) { if (jQuery.isFunction(data)) { callback = data; data = {}; } return jQuery.ajax({ type: method, url: url, data: data, success: callback, dataType: type }); } jQuery.extend({ put: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'PUT'); }, delete_: function(url, data, callback, type) { return _ajax_request(url, data, callback, type, 'DELETE'); } }); jQuery.fn.submitWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('submit', false); this.submit(function() { $.post(this.action, $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via get if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.getWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.get($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // Send data via Post if <acronym title="JavaScript">JS</acronym> enabled jQuery.fn.postWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.post($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.putWithAjax = function() { this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.put($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; jQuery.fn.deleteWithAjax = function() { this.removeAttr('onclick'); this.unbind('click', false); this.click(function() { $.delete_($(this).attr("href"), $(this).serialize(), null, "script"); return false; }) return this; }; // This will "ajaxify" the links function ajaxLinks(){ $('.ajaxForm').submitWithAjax(); $('a.get').getWithAjax(); $('a.post').postWithAjax(); $('a.put').putWithAjax(); $('a.delete').deleteWithAjax(); } show.html.erb <%= link_to 'Link Title', article_path(a, :sentiment => Article::Sentiment['Neutral']), :class => 'put' %> The combination of the two things will call update.js.erb in rails, the code in that file is used as the callback of the ajax ($.put in this case) update.js.erb // user feedback $("#notice").html('<%= flash[:notice] %>'); // update the background color $(this OR e.target).attr("color", "red");

    Read the article

  • Is concatenating with an empty string to do a string conversion really that bad?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Let's say I have two char variables, and later on I want to concatenate them into a string. This is how I would do it: char c1, c2; // ... String s = "" + c1 + c2; I've seen people who say that the "" + "trick" is "ugly", etc, and that you should use String.valueOf or Character.toString instead. I prefer this construct because: I prefer using language feature instead of API call if possible In general, isn't the language usually more stable than the API? If language feature only hides API call, then even stronger reason to prefer it! More abstract! Hiding is good! I like that the c1 and c2 are visually on the same level String.valueOf(c1) + c2 suggests something is special about c1 It's shorter. Is there really a good argument why String.valueOf or Character.toString is preferrable to "" +? Trivia: in java.lang.AssertionError, the following line appears 7 times, each with a different type: this("" + detailMessage);

    Read the article

  • How to use interfaces in exception handling

    - by vikp
    Hi, I'm working on the exception handling layer for my application. I have read few articles on interfaces and generics. I have used inheritance before quite a lot and I'm comfortable with in that area. I have a very brief design that I'm going to implement: public interface IMyExceptionLogger { public void LogException(); // Helper methods for writing into files,db, xml } I'm slightly confused what I should be doing next. public class FooClass: IMyExceptionLogger { // Fields // Constructors } Should I implement LogException() method within FooClass? If yes, than I'm struggling to see how I'm better of using an interface instead of the concrete class... I have a variety of classes that will make a use of that interface, but I don't want to write an implementation of that interface within each class. In the same time If I implement an interface in one class, and then use that class in different layers of the application I will be still using concrete classes instead of interfaces, which is a bad OO design... I hope this makes sense. Any feedback and suggestions are welcome. Please notice that I'm not interested in using net4log or its competitors because I'm doing this to learn. Thank you Edit: Wrote some more code. So I will implement variety of loggers with this interface, i.e. DBExceptionLogger, CSVExceptionLogger, XMLExceptionLogger etc. Than I will still end up with concrete classes that I will have to use in different layers of my application.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206  | Next Page >