Search Results

Search found 2805 results on 113 pages for 'automated refactoring'.

Page 2/113 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Instant Rename and Rename Refactoring

  - by Petr

  During the last weeks I have got  a few questions about rename refactoring and some users also complain to me that the refactoring in NetBeans 6.x was much faster. So I would like to explain the situation. For some people, who don't know, Instant Rename action and Rename Refactoring  can look like one action. But it's not true, even if  both actions use the same shortcut (CTRL + R). NetBeans 6.x contained only Instant Rename action (speaking about PHP support), which we can mark as very simple rename refactoring through one file. From NetBeans 7.0 the Instant Rename action works only in "non public" context. It means that this action is used for fast renaming variables that has local context like inside a method, or for renaming private methods and fields that can not be used outside of the scope, where they are declared. From user point of view these two action can be simply recognized. When is after CTRL+R called Instant Rename action, then the identifier is surrounded with rectangle and you can rename it directly in the file. It's fast and simple, also the usages of this identifier are renamed in the same time as you write. The picture below shows Instant Rename action for $message identifier, that is visible only in the print_test method and due this after CTRL+R is called Instant Rename. In NetBeans 7.0, there was added Rename Refactoring that is called for public identifiers. It means for identifiers that could be used in other files. If you press CTRL+R shortcut when the caret is inside $hello identifier from the picture above, NetBeans recognizes that $hello is declared / used in a global context and calls the Rename Refactoring that brings a dialog to change the name of the identifier. From this dialog you have to preview suggested changes, through pressing Preview button and then execute the refactoring through Do Refactoring button. Yes, it's more complicated from user point of view than Instant Rename, but in Rename Refactoring NetBeans can change more files at once. It should be  the developer responsibility to decide whether the suggested changes are right and the refactoring can be executed or in some files original name should be kept. Someone can argue that he doesn't use $hello variable in any other file so Instant Rename could be used in such case. Yes it's true, but in such case NetBeans has to know all usages of all identifiers and keep this informations up to date during editing a file. I'm sure that this is not possible due to the performance problems, mainly for big projects. So the usages are computed after pressing the Preview button. And why is the Refactor button always disabled in the Rename dialog and user has to always go through the preview phase? NetBeans has API and SPI for implementing refactoring actions and this dialog is a part of this infrastructure. If you rename an identifier for example in Java, the Refactor buttons is enabled, but Java is strongly type language and you can be almost in 99% sure that the IDE will suggest the right results. In PHP as a dynamic language, we can not be sure, what NetBeans finds is only a "guess". This is why NetBeans pushes developers to preview the changes for PHP rename. I hope that I have explain it clearly. I'm open to any discussion. What I have described above is situation in NetBeans 7.0, 7.0.1 and probably it will be also in NetBeans 7.1, because there is no plan to change it. Please write your opinion here.

  Read the article

• Is it justified to use project-wide unique function and variable names to help future refactoring?

  - by kahoon

  Refactoring tools (like ReSharper) often can't be sure whether to rename a given identifier when, for example refactoring a JavaScript function. I guess this is a consequence of JavaScript's dynamic nature. ReSharper solves this problem by offering to rename reasonable lexical matches too. The developer can opt out of renaming certain functions, if he finds that the lexical match is purely accidental. This means that the developer has to approve every instance that will be affected by the renaming. For example let's consider we have two Backbone classes which are used completely independently from each other in our application: var Header = Backbone.View.extend({ close: function() {...} }) var Dialog = Backbone.View.extend({ close: function() {...} }) If you try to rename Dialog's close method to for example closeAndNotify, then ReSharper will offer to rename all occurences of Header's close method just because they are the same lexically prior to the renaming. To avoid this problem, please consider this: var Header = Backbone.View.extend({ closeHeader: function() {...} }) var Dialog = Backbone.View.extend({ closeDialog: function() {...} }) Now you can rename closeDialog unambiguously - given that you have no other classes having a method with the same name. Is it worth it to name my functions this way to help future refactoring?

  Read the article

• How to make C/C++ Refactoring with Eclipse

  - by egebilmuh

  Hi guys i want to eclipse for *C++* like *java* ,that is,i like eclipse for java(maybe it is caused that i dont use any ide for java...).Eclipse have CDT plug in for C++ but i need eclipse's refactoring property for *C++*,Any plug-in u know for refactoring in C/C++?{extract interface, extract class,pull up, pull down , change method signature.}plz help me at least give me advice such as use this tool etc etc.( and i looked some links in overflow like this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1194709/refactoring-c-in-eclipse-cdt but i cant reach this project...)

  Read the article

• Visual Assist X: curly braces are moving during refactoring

  - by overrider

  I use Visual Assist X, build from 05.01.2009, but the same problem occurred in the previous releases as well. (I run it on MSVS 2005) When I do some refactoring (like extracting a method), everything's fine, but all the curly braces move forward. For example, before refactoring the code looked like this: while (expr) { doSmth(); } After refactoring: while (expr) { doSmth(); } So, I need to move manually all the brackets. Sure, the problem is minor, but it becomes annoying when you do a lot of refactoring. Is it a bug or just default settings? So, does anyone know a workaround?

  Read the article

• refactoring in iSeries (RPG), is it realistic

  - by albert green

  Implementing agile in projects requires the ability to do refactoring. It is not really a must, but code refactoring has proven to be a good engineering practice. In an agile (Scrum) project on the iSeries platform, which requires development (new code and modifications to legacy code) in RPG, RPG LE, is it possible to implement refactoring? If so what are the techniques to do it? If someone who has tried it could share their experience or just point to references, I would greatly appreciate it.

  Read the article

• Practical refactoring using unit tests

  - by awhite

  Having just read the first four chapters of Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, I embarked on my first refactoring and almost immediately came to a roadblock. It stems from the requirement that before you begin refactoring, you should put unit tests around the legacy code. That allows you to be sure your refactoring didn't change what the original code did (only how it did it). So my first question is this: how do I unit-test a method in legacy code? How can I put a unit test around a 500 line (if I'm lucky) method that doesn't do just one task? It seems to me that I would have to refactor my legacy code just to make it unit-testable. Does anyone have any experience refactoring using unit tests? And, if so, do you have any practical examples you can share with me? My second question is somewhat hard to explain. Here's an example: I want to refactor a legacy method that populates an object from a database record. Wouldn't I have to write a unit test that compares an object retrieved using the old method, with an object retrieved using my refactored method? Otherwise, how would I know that my refactored method produces the same results as the old method? If that is true, then how long do I leave the old deprecated method in the source code? Do I just whack it after I test a few different records? Or, do I need to keep it around for a while in case I encounter a bug in my refactored code? Lastly, since a couple people have asked...the legacy code was originally written in VB6 and then ported to VB.NET with minimal architecture changes.

  Read the article

• How can I make refactoring a priority for my team?

  - by Joseph Garland

  The codebase I work with daily has no automated tests, inconsistent naming and tons of comments like "Why is this here?", "Not sure if this is needed" or "This method isn't named right" and the code is littered with "Changelogs" despite the fact we use source control. Suffice it to say, our codebase could use refactoring. We always have tasks to fix bugs or add new features, so no time is put aside to refactor code to be better and more modular, and it doesn't seem to be a high priority. How can I demonstrate the value of refactoring such that it gets added to our task lists? Is it worth it to just refactor as I go, asking for forgiveness rather than permission?

  Read the article

• Refactoring Part 1 : Intuitive Investments

  - by Wes McClure

  Fear, it’s what turns maintaining applications into a nightmare.  Technology moves on, teams move on, someone is left to operate the application, what was green is now perceived brown.  Eventually the business will evolve and changes will need to be made.  The approach to those changes often dictates the long term viability of the application.  Fear of change, lack of passion and a lack of interest in understanding the domain often leads to a paranoia to do anything that doesn’t involve duct tape and bailing twine.  Don’t get me wrong, those have a place in the short term viability of a project but they don’t have a place in the long term.  Add to it “us versus them” in regards to the original team and those that maintain it, internal politics and other factors and you have a recipe for disaster.  This results in code that quickly becomes unmanageable.  Even the most clever of designs will eventually become sub optimal and debt will amount that exponentially makes changes difficult.  This is where refactoring comes in, and it’s something I’m very passionate about.  Refactoring is about improving the process whereby we make change, it’s an exponential investment in the process of change. Without it we will incur exponential complexity that halts productivity. Investments, especially in the long term, require intuition and reflection.  How can we tackle new development effectively via evolving the original design and paying off debt that has been incurred? The longer we wait to ask and answer this question, the more it will cost us.  Small requests don’t warrant big changes, but realizing when changes now will pay off in the long term, and especially in the short term, is valuable. I have done my fair share of maintaining applications and continuously refactoring as needed, but recently I’ve begun work on a project that hasn’t had much debt, if any, paid down in years.  This is the first in a series of blog posts to try to capture the process which is largely driven by intuition of smaller refactorings from other projects. Signs that refactoring could help: Testability How can decreasing test time not pay dividends? One of the first things I found was that a very important piece often takes 30+ minutes to test.  I can only imagine how much time this has cost historically, but more importantly the time it might cost in the coming weeks: I estimate at least 10-20 hours per person!  This is simply unacceptable for almost any situation.  As it turns out, about 6 hours of working with this part of the application and I was able to cut the time down to under 30 seconds!  In less than the lost time of one week, I was able to fix the problem for all future weeks! If we can’t test fast then we can’t change fast, nor with confidence. Code is used by end users and it’s also used by developers, consider your own needs in terms of the code base.  Adding logic to enable/disable features during testing can help decouple parts of an application and lead to massive improvements.  What exactly is so wrong about test code in real code?  Often, these become features for operators and sometimes end users.  If you cannot run an integration test within a test runner in your IDE, it’s time to refactor. Readability Are variables named meaningfully via a ubiquitous language? Is the code segmented functionally or behaviorally so as to minimize the complexity of any one area? Are aspects properly segmented to avoid confusion (security, logging, transactions, translations, dependency management etc) Is the code declarative (what) or imperative (how)?  What matters, not how.  LINQ is a great abstraction of the what, not how, of collection manipulation.  The Reactive framework is a great example of the what, not how, of managing streams of data. Are constants abstracted and named, or are they just inline? Do people constantly bitch about the code/design? If the code is hard to understand, it will be hard to change with confidence.  It’s a large undertaking if the original designers didn’t pay much attention to readability and as such will never be done to “completion.”  Make sure not to go over board, instead use this as you change an application, not in lieu of changes (like with testability). Complexity Simplicity will never be achieved, it’s highly subjective.  That said, a lot of code can be significantly simplified, tidy it up as you go.  Refactoring will often converge upon a simplification step after enough time, keep an eye out for this. Understandability In the process of changing code, one often gains a better understanding of it.  Refactoring code is a good way to learn how it works.  However, it’s usually best in combination with other reasons, in effect killing two birds with one stone.  Often this is done when readability is poor, in which case understandability is usually poor as well.  In the large undertaking we are making with this legacy application, we will be replacing it.  Therefore, understanding all of its features is important and this refactoring technique will come in very handy. Unused code How can deleting things not help? This is a freebie in refactoring, it’s very easy to detect with modern tools, especially in statically typed languages.  We have VCS for a reason, if in doubt, delete it out (ok that was cheesy)! If you don’t know where to start when refactoring, this is an excellent starting point! Duplication Do not pray and sacrifice to the anti-duplication gods, there are excellent examples where consolidated code is a horrible idea, usually with divergent domains.  That said, mediocre developers live by copy/paste.  Other times features converge and aren’t combined.  Tools for finding similar code are great in the example of copy/paste problems.  Knowledge of the domain helps identify convergent concepts that often lead to convergent solutions and will give intuition for where to look for conceptual repetition. 80/20 and the Boy Scouts It’s often said that 80% of the time 20% of the application is used most.  These tend to be the parts that are changed.  There are also parts of the code where 80% of the time is spent changing 20% (probably for all the refactoring smells above).  I focus on these areas any time I make a change and follow the philosophy of the Boy Scout in cleaning up more than I messed up.  If I spend 2 hours changing an application, in the 20%, I’ll always spend at least 15 minutes cleaning it or nearby areas. This gives a huge productivity edge on developers that don’t. Ironically after a short period of time the 20% shrinks enough that we don’t have to spend 80% of our time there and can move on to other areas.   Refactoring is highly subjective, never attempt to refactor to completion!  Learn to be comfortable with leaving one part of the application in a better state than others.  It’s an evolution, not a revolution.  These are some simple areas to look into when making changes and can help get one started in the process.  I’ve often found that refactoring is a convergent process towards simplicity that sometimes spans a few hours but often can lead to massive simplifications over the timespan of weeks and months of regular development.

  Read the article

• CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

  Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

  Read the article

• CodeStock 2012 Review: Eric Landes( @ericlandes ) - Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.

  Automated Tests in to automated Builds! How to put the right type of automated tests in to the right automated builds.Speaker: Eric LandesTwitter: @ericlandesBlog: http://ericlandes.com/ This was one of the first sessions I attended during CodeStock 2012. Eric’s talk focused mostly on unit testing, and that the lack of proper unit testing can be compared to stealing from an employer. His point was that if you’re not doing proper unit testing then all of the time wasted on fixing issues that could have been detected with unit tests is like stealing money from employer. He makes the assumption that that time spent on fixing these issues could have been better spent developing new features that drive the business. To a point I can agree with Eric’s argument regarding unit testing and stealing from a company’s perspective. I can see how he relates resources being shifted from new development to bug fixes as stealing based on the fact that the resources used to fix bugs are directly taken from other projects. He also states that Boring/Redundant and Build/Test tasks should be automated because it reduces the changes of errors and frees up developer to do what they do best, DEVELOP! When he refers to testing, he breaks testing down in to four distinct types. Unit Test Acceptance Test (This also includes Integration Tests) Performance Test UI Test With this he also recommends that developers should not go buck wild striving for 100% code coverage because some test my not provide a great return on investment. In his experience he recommends that 70% test coverage was a very acceptable rate.

  Read the article

• Can notes/to-dos in code comments sent to code-reviews result in an effective refactoring process?

  - by dukeofgaming

  I want to start/improve a culture of collective code ownership at my company but at a geographically distributed level... I'd say there is some current collective code-ownership mentality, but only at single geographical sites. This is a follow-up to this question: What is the politically correct way of refactoring other's code? I'm just wondering if submitting *just code comments* for code reviews (we have ReviewBoard, possibly upgrading to Crucible) could actually be an effective mechanism to get the conversation started on improving code, without having others feel territorial about their code. For example, if I add: //ToDo: Refactor this code and that code because of reasons X and Y Then, submit it for code review, and it gets accepted... it could be considered as an agreement (which I think is sometimes harder to get with new code up front). At the same time, the author (and others) might have an easier time digesting and accepting the proposal; rejecting a proposal because it might break things will not longer be a valid reason and therefore the fear of making a change is lost... and at the same time, do not invest 10 hours optimizing something that no one thinks it is worth it and opposes to it just out of fear. This is all conjecture, but I'm feeling something like this (submitting refactoring notes in code comments at the code-review process) would work. Has anyone done something like this in practice?, if so, what have been the results?

  Read the article

• Does it make sense to write tests for legacy code when there is no time for a complete refactoring?

  - by is4

  I usually try to follow the advice of the book Working Effectively with Legacy Code. I break dependencies, move parts of the code to @VisibleForTesting public static methods and to new classes to make the code (or at least some part of it) testable. And I write tests to make sure that I don't break anything when I'm modifying or adding new functions. A colleague says that I shouldn't do this. His reasoning: The original code might not work properly in the first place. And writing tests for it makes future fixes and modifications harder since devs have to understand and modify the tests too. If it's GUI code with some logic (~12 lines, 2-3 if/else block, for example), a test isn't worth the trouble since the code is too trivial to begin with. Similar bad patterns could exist in other parts of the codebase, too (which I haven't seen yet, I'm rather new); it will be easier to clean them all up in one big refactoring. Extracting out logic could undermine this future possibility. Should I avoid extracting out testable parts and writing tests if we don't have time for complete refactoring? Is there any disadvantage to this that I should consider?

  Read the article

• Is spreading code with refactoring comments a good idea?

  - by Uooo

  I am working on a "spaghetti-code" project, and while I am fixing bugs and implementing new features, I also do some refactoring in order to make the code unit-testable. The code is often so tightly coupled or complicated that fixing a small bug would result in a lot of classes being rewritten. So I decided to draw a line somewhere in the code where I stop refactoring. To make this clear, I drop some comments in the code explaining the situation, like: class RefactoredClass { private SingletonClass xyz; // I know SingletonClass is a Singleton, so I would not need to pass it here. // However, I would like to get rid of it in the future, so it is passed as a // parameter here to make this change easier later. public RefactoredClass(SingletonClass xyz) { this.xyz = xyz; } } Or, another piece of cake: // This might be a good candidate to be refactored. The structure is like: // Version String // | // +--> ... // | // +--> ... // | // ... and so on ... // Map map = new HashMap<String, Map<String, Map<String, List<String>>>>(); Is this a good idea? What should I keep in mind when doing so?

  Read the article

• Manual testing Vs Automated testing

  - by mgj

  Respected all, As many know testing can be mainly classified into manual and automated testing. With regard to this certain questions come to mind. Hope you can help... They include: What is the basic difference between the two types of testing? What are the elements of challenges involved in both manual and automated testing? What are the different skill sets required by a software tester for manual and automated testing respectively? What are the different job prospects and growth opportunities among software testers who do manual testing automated testing respectively? Is manual testing under rated to automated testing in anyway(s)? If yes, kindly specify the way. How differently are the manual testers treated in comparison to automated testers in the corporate world?( If they truly are differentiated in any terms as such ) I hope you can share your knowledge in answering these questions.. Thank you for your time..:)

  Read the article

• How do you explain refactoring to a non-technical person?

  - by Benjol

  (This question was inspired by the most-voted answer here) How do you go about explaining refactoring (and technical debt) to a non-technical person (typically a PHB or customer)? ("What, it's going to cost me a month of your work with no visible difference?!") UPDATE Thanks for all the answers so far, I think this list will provide several useful analogies to which we can point the appropriate people (though editing out references to PHBs may be wise!)

  Read the article

• How do you explain refactoring to a non-technical person?

  - by Benjol

  (This question was inspired by the most-voted answer here) How do you go about explaining refactoring (and technical debt) to a non-technical person (typically a PHB or customer)? ("What, it's going to cost me a month of your work with no visible difference?!") UPDATE Thanks for all the answers so far, I think this list will provide several useful analogies to which we can point the appropriate people (though editing out references to PHBs may be wise!)

  Read the article

• Updated list of refactoring support for different IDEs

  - by Vargen

  Does anyone know of an updated list of refactoring support for different IDEs? How many of Fowlers refactorings have tool support in popular IDEs? And does any IDE use code smells to any greater extent? I guess one would have to use addons for some IDEs, so even if i did find an updated list of refactoring support for say Eclipse, that would probably not be representative.

  Read the article

• Refactoring SQL

  - by Mongus Pong

  Are there any formal techniques for refactoring SQL similar to this list here that is for code? I am currently working on a massive query for a particular report and I'm sure there's plenty of scope for refactoring here which I'm just stumbling through myself bit by bit.

  Read the article

• Practical refactoring

  - by ahb

  I've read about refactoring and probably did it before I even knew about it, however I don't really know much about it is actually done and what it practically means. What, from your view, is refactoring? How and when do you do it?

  Read the article

• Ubuntu 12.04 + Eclipse 64 bits key binding error

  - by user110933

  The text is quite extense so, this is just a part of it: !SESSION 2012-11-23 10:15:52.442 ----------------------------------------------- eclipse.buildId=I20120608-1200 java.version=1.7.0_09 java.vendor=Oracle Corporation BootLoader constants: OS=linux, ARCH=x86_64, WS=gtk, NL=en_US Command-line arguments: -os linux -ws gtk -arch x86_64 !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 10:16:06.408 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 10:16:06.408 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+R: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) !ENTRY org.eclipse.ui.workbench 4 0 2012-11-23 10:16:10.409 !MESSAGE An unexpected exception was thrown. !STACK 0 java.lang.NullPointerException at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.putToolbarLabel(WorkbenchWindow.java:1697) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.menus.MenuAdditionCacheEntry.createToolBarAdditionContribution(MenuAdditionCacheEntry.java:208) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.menus.MenuAdditionCacheEntry.createContributionItems(MenuAdditionCacheEntry.java:177) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.menus.TrimContributionManager.update(TrimContributionManager.java:224) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.updateLayoutDataForContents(WorkbenchWindow.java:3874) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.setCoolBarVisible(WorkbenchWindow.java:3675) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ViewIntroAdapterPart.setBarVisibility(ViewIntroAdapterPart.java:203) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ViewIntroAdapterPart.dispose(ViewIntroAdapterPart.java:106) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPartReference.doDisposePart(WorkbenchPartReference.java:737) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ViewReference.doDisposePart(ViewReference.java:107) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPartReference.dispose(WorkbenchPartReference.java:684) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPage.disposePart(WorkbenchPage.java:1801) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPage.partRemoved(WorkbenchPage.java:1793) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ViewFactory.releaseView(ViewFactory.java:257) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Perspective.dispose(Perspective.java:292) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchPage.dispose(WorkbenchPage.java:1872) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.closeAllPages(WorkbenchWindow.java:894) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.hardClose(WorkbenchWindow.java:1729) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.busyClose(WorkbenchWindow.java:730) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.access$0(WorkbenchWindow.java:715) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow$6.run(WorkbenchWindow.java:867) at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:70) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.close(WorkbenchWindow.java:865) at org.eclipse.jface.window.WindowManager.close(WindowManager.java:109) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$18.run(Workbench.java:1114) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.SafeRunner.run(SafeRunner.java:42) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.busyClose(Workbench.java:1111) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$15(Workbench.java:1040) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$25.run(Workbench.java:1284) at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:70) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.close(Workbench.java:1282) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.close(Workbench.java:1254) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.busyClose(WorkbenchWindow.java:727) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.access$0(WorkbenchWindow.java:715) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow$6.run(WorkbenchWindow.java:867) at org.eclipse.swt.custom.BusyIndicator.showWhile(BusyIndicator.java:70) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.WorkbenchWindow.close(WorkbenchWindow.java:865) at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window.handleShellCloseEvent(Window.java:741) at org.eclipse.jface.window.Window$3.shellClosed(Window.java:687) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.TypedListener.handleEvent(TypedListener.java:98) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.EventTable.sendEvent(EventTable.java:84) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1276) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1300) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.sendEvent(Widget.java:1285) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.closeWidget(Shell.java:617) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Shell.gtk_delete_event(Shell.java:1191) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Widget.windowProc(Widget.java:1750) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Control.windowProc(Control.java:5116) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.windowProc(Display.java:4369) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.gtk.OS._gtk_main_do_event(Native Method) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.gtk.OS.gtk_main_do_event(OS.java:8295) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.eventProc(Display.java:1192) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.gtk.OS._g_main_context_iteration(Native Method) at org.eclipse.swt.internal.gtk.OS.g_main_context_iteration(OS.java:2332) at org.eclipse.swt.widgets.Display.readAndDispatch(Display.java:3177) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runEventLoop(Workbench.java:2701) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.runUI(Workbench.java:2665) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.access$4(Workbench.java:2499) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench$7.run(Workbench.java:679) at org.eclipse.core.databinding.observable.Realm.runWithDefault(Realm.java:332) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.Workbench.createAndRunWorkbench(Workbench.java:668) at org.eclipse.ui.PlatformUI.createAndRunWorkbench(PlatformUI.java:149) at org.eclipse.ui.internal.ide.application.IDEApplication.start(IDEApplication.java:124) at org.eclipse.equinox.internal.app.EclipseAppHandle.run(EclipseAppHandle.java:196) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.runApplication(EclipseAppLauncher.java:110) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.internal.adaptor.EclipseAppLauncher.start(EclipseAppLauncher.java:79) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:353) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.adaptor.EclipseStarter.run(EclipseStarter.java:180) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method) at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57) at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:601) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.invokeFramework(Main.java:629) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.basicRun(Main.java:584) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.run(Main.java:1438) at org.eclipse.equinox.launcher.Main.main(Main.java:1414) !SESSION 2012-11-23 10:36:07.863 ----------------------------------------------- eclipse.buildId=I20120608-1200 java.version=1.7.0_09 java.vendor=Oracle Corporation BootLoader constants: OS=linux, ARCH=x86_64, WS=gtk, NL=en_US Command-line arguments: -os linux -ws gtk -arch x86_64 !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 10:36:13.181 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 10:36:13.181 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+R: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) !ENTRY org.eclipse.osgi 2 1 2012-11-23 10:39:04.681 !MESSAGE NLS unused message: CacheManager_CannotLoadNonUrlLocation in: org.eclipse.equinox.internal.p2.repository.messages !SESSION 2012-11-23 15:14:12.933 ----------------------------------------------- eclipse.buildId=I20120608-1200 java.version=1.7.0_09 java.vendor=Oracle Corporation BootLoader constants: OS=linux, ARCH=x86_64, WS=gtk, NL=en_US Command-line arguments: -os linux -ws gtk -arch x86_64 !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:14:23.380 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:14:23.380 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+R: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) !ENTRY org.springframework.ide.eclipse.uaa 4 2 2012-11-23 15:14:32.800 !MESSAGE Problems occurred when invoking code from plug-in: "org.springframework.ide.eclipse.uaa". !STACK 0 java.lang.NullPointerException at org.springframework.ide.eclipse.internal.uaa.monitor.CommandUsageMonitor.startMonitoring(CommandUsageMonitor.java:61) at org.springframework.ide.eclipse.uaa.UaaPlugin$1$1.run(UaaPlugin.java:91) at org.eclipse.core.runtime.SafeRunner.run(SafeRunner.java:42) at org.springframework.ide.eclipse.uaa.UaaPlugin$1.run(UaaPlugin.java:85) at org.eclipse.core.internal.jobs.Worker.run(Worker.java:54) !SESSION 2012-11-23 15:15:21.833 ----------------------------------------------- eclipse.buildId=I20120608-1200 java.version=1.7.0_09 java.vendor=Oracle Corporation BootLoader constants: OS=linux, ARCH=x86_64, WS=gtk, NL=en_US Command-line arguments: -os linux -ws gtk -arch x86_64 !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:15:27.283 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:15:27.283 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+R: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+R, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.defaultAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,system) !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:18:41.265 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:18:41.265 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+E: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.wst.jsdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.wst.jsdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - JavaScript,JavaScript Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user) !SESSION 2012-11-23 15:18:56.267 ----------------------------------------------- eclipse.buildId=I20120608-1200 java.version=1.7.0_09 java.vendor=Oracle Corporation BootLoader constants: OS=linux, ARCH=x86_64, WS=gtk, NL=en_US Command-line arguments: -os linux -ws gtk -arch x86_64 !ENTRY org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:19:01.605 !MESSAGE Keybinding conflicts occurred. They may interfere with normal accelerator operation. !SUBENTRY 1 org.eclipse.jface 2 0 2012-11-23 15:19:01.605 !MESSAGE A conflict occurred for ALT+SHIFT+E: Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.wst.jsdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.wst.jsdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - JavaScript,JavaScript Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.edit.text.java.rename.element,Rename - Refactoring , Rename the selected element, Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), , ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user) Binding(ALT+SHIFT+E, ParameterizedCommand(Command(oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.rename.command,Rename, Rename the selected text., Category(org.eclipse.jdt.ui.category.refactoring,Refactor - Java,Java Refactoring Actions,true), oracle.eclipse.tools.common.services.ui.refactor.internal.ArtifactRefactoringCommandHandler, ,,true),null), org.eclipse.ui.emacsAcceleratorConfiguration, org.eclipse.ui.contexts.window,,,user)

  Read the article

• Refactoring in domain driven design

  - by Andrew Whitaker

  I've just started working on a project and we're using domain-driven design (as defined by Eric Evans in Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software. I believe that our project is certainly a candidate for this design pattern as Evans describes it in his book. I'm struggling with the idea of constantly refactoring. I know refactoring is a necessity in any project and will happen inevitably as the software changes. However, in my experience, refactoring occurs when the needs of the development team change, not as understanding of the domain changes ("refactoring to greater insight" as Evans calls it). I'm most concerned with breakthroughs in understanding of the domain model. I understand making small changes, but what if a large change in the model is necessary? What's an effective way of convincing yourself (and others) you should refactor after you obtain a clearer domain model? After all, refactoring to improve code organization or performance could be completely separate from how expressive in terms of the ubiquitous language code is. Sometimes it just seems like there's not enough time to refactor. Luckily, SCRUM lends it self to refactoring. The iterative nature of SCRUM makes it easy to build a small piece and change and it. But over time that piece will get larger and what if you have a breakthrough after that piece is so large that it will be too difficult to change? Has anyone worked on a project employing domain-driven design? If so, it would be great to get some insight on this one. I'd especially like to hear some success stories, since DDD seems very difficult to get right. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is it bad to have an "Obsessive Refactoring Disorder"?

  - by Rachel

  I was reading this question and realized that could almost be me. I am fairly OCD about refactoring someone else's code when I see that I can improve it. For example, if the code contains duplicate methods to do the same thing with nothing more than a single parameter changing, I feel I have to remove all the copy/paste methods and replace it with one generic one. Is this bad? Should I try and stop? I try not to refactor unless I can actually make improvements to the code performance or readability, or if the person who did the code isn't following our standard naming conventions (I hate expecting a variable to be local because of the naming standard, only to discover it is a global variable which has been incorrectly named)

  Read the article

• Is it bad to have an "Obsessive Refactoring Disorder"?

  - by Rachel

  I was reading this question and realized that could almost be me. I am fairly OCD about refactoring someone else's code when I see that I can improve it. For example, if the code contains duplicate methods to do the same thing with nothing more than a single parameter changing, I feel I have to remove all the copy/paste methods and replace it with one generic one. Is this bad? Should I try and stop? I try not to refactor unless I can actually make improvements to the code performance or readability, or if the person who did the code isn't following our standard naming conventions (I hate expecting a variable to be local because of the naming standard, only to discover it is a global variable which has been incorrectly named)

  Read the article

• Etiquette for refactoring other people's sourcecode?

  - by Prutswonder

  Our team of software developers consists of a bunch of experienced programmers with a variety of programming styles and preferences. We do not have standards for everything, just the bare necessities to prevent total chaos. Recently, I bumped into some refactoring done by a colleague. My code looked somewhat like this: public Person CreateNewPerson(string firstName, string lastName) { var person = new Person() { FirstName = firstName, LastName = lastName }; return person; } Which was refactored to this: public Person CreateNewPerson (string firstName, string lastName) { Person person = new Person (); person.FirstName = firstName; person.LastName = lastName; return person; } Just because my colleague needed to update some other method in one of the classes I wrote, he also "refactored" the method above. For the record, he's one of those developers that despises syntactic sugar and uses a different bracket placement/identation scheme than the rest of us. My question is: What is the (C#) programmer's etiquette for refactoring other people's sourcecode (both semantic and syntactic)?

  Read the article

• Is there such thing like a "refactoring/maintainability group" role in software companies?

  - by dukeofgaming

  So, I work in a company that does embedded software development, other groups focus in the core development of different products' software and my department (which is in another geographical location) which is located at the factory has to deal with software development as well, but across all products, so that we can also fix things quicker when the lines go down due to software problems with the product. In other words, we are generalists while other groups specialize on each product. Thing is, it is kind of hard to get involved in core development when you are distributed geographically (well, I know it really isn't that hard, but there might be unintended cultural/political barriers when it comes to the discipline of collaborating remotely). So I figured that, since we are currently just putting fires out and somewhat being idle/sub-utilized (even though we are a new department, or maybe that is the reason), I thought that a good role for us could be detecting areas of opportunity of refactoring and rearchitecting code and all other implementations that might have to do with stewarding maintainability and modularity. Other groups aren't focused on this because they don't have the time and they have aggressive deadlines, which damage the quality of the code (eternal story of software projects) The thing is that I want my group/department to be recognized by management and other groups with this role officially, and I'm having trouble to come up with a good definition/identity of our group for this matter. So my question is: is this role something that already exists?, or am I the first one to make something like this up?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >