Search Results

Search found 88696 results on 3548 pages for 'code injection'.

Page 2/3548 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Writing/discussions about the aesthetics of code?

  - by dilettante.coder

  I'm looking for considerations of the questions "Can code be beautiful?" and "What makes code beautiful?" Examples would include: This academic paper: Obfuscation, Weird Languages, and Code Aesthetics This blog post: Hamon or the Skin Deep Beauty of Code Please note that I'm not trying to start a discussion here, or asking for opinions about what makes code beautiful, or for code you think is beautiful; I'm trying to find stuff that has already been published. Thanks for your help.

  Read the article

• Where should I put bindings for dependency injection?

  - by Mike G

  I'm new to dependency injection and though I've really liked it so far, I'm not sure where bindings should go. I'm using Guice in Java, so some of what I say might be specific to just Guice. As I see it, there's two options: Accompanying the class(s) its needed for. Then, just write install(OtherClassModule.class) in whatever other modules want to be able to use said class. As I see it, the advantage of this is that classes that want to use it (or manage classes that want to use it) don't need to know any of the implementation detail. The issue I see is that what if two classes want to use two different versions of the same class? There's a lot of customization possible because of DI and this seems to restrict it a lot. Implemented in the module of the class(s) its needed for. It's the flip of what I said above. Now you have customization, but not encapsulation. Is there a third option? Am I misunderstanding something obvious? What's the best practice?

  Read the article

• Acceptable placement of the composition root using dependency injection and inversion of control containers

  - by Lumirris

  I've read in several sources including Mark Seemann's 'Ploeh' blog about how the appropriate placement of the composition root of an IoC container is as close as possible to the entry point of an application. In the .NET world, these applications seem to be commonly thought of as Web projects, WPF projects, console applications, things with a typical UI (read: not library projects). Is it really going against this sage advice to place the composition root at the entry point of a library project, when it represents the logical entry point of a group of library projects, and the client of a project group such as this is someone else's work, whose author can't or won't add the composition root to their project (a UI project or yet another library project, even)? I'm familiar with Ninject as an IoC container implementation, but I imagine many others work the same way in that they can scan for a module containing all the necessary binding configurations. This means I could put a binding module in its own library project to compile with my main library project's output, and if the client wanted to change the configuration (an unlikely scenario in my case), they could drop in a replacement dll to replace the library with the binding module. This seems to avoid the most common clients having to deal with dependency injection and composition roots at all, and would make for the cleanest API for the library project group. Yet this seems to fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the issue. Is it just that most of the advice out there makes the assumption that the developer has some coordination with the development of the UI project(s) as well, rather than my case, in which I'm just developing libraries for others to use?

  Read the article

• Desktop application, dependency injection

  - by liori

  I am thinking of applying a real dependency injection library to my toy C#/GTK# desktop application. I chose NInject, but I think this is irrelevant to my question. There is a database object, a main window and several utility window classes. It's clear that I can inject the database into every window object, so here DI is useful. But does it make sense to inject utility window classes into other window classes? Example: I have classes such as: class MainWindow {…} class AddItemWindow {…} class AddAttachmentWindow {…} class BrowseItemsWindow {…} class QueryBuilderWindow {…} class QueryBrowserWindow {…} class PreferencesWindow {…} … Each of the utility classes can be opened from MainWindow. Some utility windows can also be opened from other utility windows. Generally, there might be a really complex graph of who can open whom. So each of those classes might need quite a lot of other window classes injected. I'm worried that such usage will go against the suggestion not to inject too many classes at once and become a code smell. Should I use some kind of a service locator object here?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection and method signatures

  - by sunwukung

  I've been using YADIF (yet another dependency injection framework) in a PHP/Zend app I'm working on to handle dependencies. This has achieved some notable benefits in terms of testing and decoupling classes. However,one thing that strikes me is that despite the sleight of hand performed when using this technique, the method names impart a degree of coupling. Probably not the best example -but these methods are distinct from ... say the PEAR Mailer. The method names themselves are a (subtle) form of coupling //example public function __construct($dic){ $this->dic = $dic; } public function example(){ //this line in itself indicates the YADIF origin of the DIC $Mail= $dic->getComponent('mail'); $Mail->setBodyText($body); $Mail->setFrom($from); $Mail->setSubject($subject); } I could write a series of proxies/wrappers to hide these methods and thus promote decoupling from , but this seems a bit excessive. You have to balance purity with pragmatism... How far would you go to hide the dependencies in your classes?

  Read the article

• Constructor Injection and when to use a Service Locator

  - by Simon

  I'm struggling to understand parts of StructureMap's usage. In particular, in the documentation a statement is made regarding a common anti-pattern, the use of StructureMap as a Service Locator only instead of constructor injection (code samples straight from Structuremap documentation): public ShippingScreenPresenter() { _service = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IShippingService>(); _repository = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IRepository>(); } instead of: public ShippingScreenPresenter(IShippingService service, IRepository repository) { _service = service; _repository = repository; } This is fine for a very short object graph, but when dealing with objects many levels deep, does this imply that you should pass down all the dependencies required by the deeper objects right from the top? Surely this breaks encapsulation and exposes too much information about the implementation of deeper objects. Let's say I'm using the Active Record pattern, so my record needs access to a data repository to be able to save and load itself. If this record is loaded inside an object, does that object call ObjectFactory.CreateInstance() and pass it into the active record's constructor? What if that object is inside another object. Does it take the IRepository in as its own parameter from further up? That would expose to the parent object the fact that we're access the data repository at this point, something the outer object probably shouldn't know. public class OuterClass { public OuterClass(IRepository repository) { // Why should I know that ThingThatNeedsRecord needs a repository? // that smells like exposed implementation to me, especially since // ThingThatNeedsRecord doesn't use the repo itself, but passes it // to the record. // Also where do I create repository? Have to instantiate it somewhere // up the chain of objects ThingThatNeedsRecord thing = new ThingThatNeedsRecord(repository); thing.GetAnswer("question"); } } public class ThingThatNeedsRecord { public ThingThatNeedsRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public string GetAnswer(string someParam) { // create activeRecord(s) and process, returning some result // part of which contains: ActiveRecord record = new ActiveRecord(repository, key); } private IRepository repository; } public class ActiveRecord { public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository, int primaryKey); { this.repositry = repository; Load(primaryKey); } public void Save(); private void Load(int primaryKey) { this.primaryKey = primaryKey; // access the database via the repository and set someData } private IRepository repository; private int primaryKey; private string someData; } Any thoughts would be appreciated. Simon

  Read the article

• Dependency injection with n-tier Entity Framework solution

  - by Matthew

  I am currently designing an n-tier solution which is using Entity Framework 5 (.net 4) as its data access strategy, but am concerned about how to incorporate dependency injection to make it testable / flexible. My current solution layout is as follows (my solution is called Alcatraz): Alcatraz.WebUI: An asp.net webform project, the front end user interface, references projects Alcatraz.Business and Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Business: A class library project, contains the business logic, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Access, Alcatraz.Data.Models Alcatraz.Data.Access: A class library project, houses AlcatrazModel.edmx and AlcatrazEntities DbContext, references projects Alcatraz.Data.Models. Alcatraz.Data.Models: A class library project, contains POCOs for the Alcatraz model, no references. My vision for how this solution would work is the web-ui would instantiate a repository within the business library, this repository would have a dependency (through the constructor) of a connection string (not an AlcatrazEntities instance). The web-ui would know the database connection strings, but not that it was an entity framework connection string. In the Business project: public class InmateRepository : IInmateRepository { private string _connectionString; public InmateRepository(string connectionString) { if (connectionString == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("connectionString"); } EntityConnectionStringBuilder connectionBuilder = new EntityConnectionStringBuilder(); connectionBuilder.Metadata = "res://*/AlcatrazModel.csdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.ssdl|res://*/AlcatrazModel.msl"; connectionBuilder.Provider = "System.Data.SqlClient"; connectionBuilder.ProviderConnectionString = connectionString; _connectionString = connectionBuilder.ToString(); } public IQueryable<Inmate> GetAllInmates() { AlcatrazEntities ents = new AlcatrazEntities(_connectionString); return ents.Inmates; } } In the Web UI: IInmateRepository inmateRepo = new InmateRepository(@"data source=MATTHEW-PC\SQLEXPRESS;initial catalog=Alcatraz;integrated security=True;"); List<Inmate> deathRowInmates = inmateRepo.GetAllInmates().Where(i => i.OnDeathRow).ToList(); I have a few related questions about this design. 1) Does this design even make sense in terms of Entity Frameworks capabilities? I heard that Entity framework uses the Unit-of-work pattern already, am I just adding another layer of abstract unnecessarily? 2) I don't want my web-ui to directly communicate with Entity Framework (or even reference it for that matter), I want all database access to go through the business layer as in the future I will have multiple projects using the same business layer (web service, windows application, etc.) and I want to have it easy to maintain / update by having the business logic in one central area. Is this an appropriate way to achieve this? 3) Should the Business layer even contain repositories, or should that be contained within the Access layer? If where they are is alright, is passing a connection string a good dependency to assume? Thanks for taking the time to read!

  Read the article

• How to handle "circular dependency" in dependency injection

  - by Roel

  The title says "Circular Dependency", but it is not the correct wording, because to me the design seems solid. However, consider the following scenario, where the blue parts are given from external partner, and orange is my own implementation. Also assume there is more then one ConcreteMain, but I want to use a specific one. (In reality, each class has some more dependencies, but I tried to simplify it here) I would like to instanciate all of this with Depency Injection (Unity), but I obviously get a StackOverflowException on the following code, because Runner tries to instantiate ConcreteMain, and ConcreteMain needs a Runner. IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); How can I avouid this? Is there any way to structure this so that I can use it with DI? The scenario I'm doing now is setting everything up manually, but that puts a hard dependency on ConcreteMain in the class which instantiates it. This is what i'm trying to avoid (with Unity registrations in configuration). All source code below (very simplified example!); public class Program { public static void Main(string[] args) { IUnityContainer ioc = new UnityContainer(); ioc.RegisterType<IMain, ConcreteMain>() .RegisterType<IMainCallback, Runner>(); var runner = ioc.Resolve<Runner>(); Console.WriteLine("invoking runner..."); runner.DoSomethingAwesome(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public class Runner : IMainCallback { private readonly IMain mainServer; public Runner(IMain mainServer) { this.mainServer = mainServer; } public void DoSomethingAwesome() { Console.WriteLine("trying to do something awesome"); mainServer.DoSomething(); } public void SomethingIsDone(object something) { Console.WriteLine("hey look, something is finally done."); } } public interface IMain { void DoSomething(); } public interface IMainCallback { void SomethingIsDone(object something); } public abstract class AbstractMain : IMain { protected readonly IMainCallback callback; protected AbstractMain(IMainCallback callback) { this.callback = callback; } public abstract void DoSomething(); } public class ConcreteMain : AbstractMain { public ConcreteMain(IMainCallback callback) : base(callback){} public override void DoSomething() { Console.WriteLine("starting to do something..."); var task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>{ Thread.Sleep(5000);/*very long running task*/ }); task.ContinueWith(t => callback.SomethingIsDone(true)); } }

  Read the article

• Dependency injection: How to sell it

  - by Mel

  Let it be known that I am a big fan of dependency injection (DI) and automated testing. I could talk all day about it. Background Recently, our team just got this big project that is to built from scratch. It is a strategic application with complex business requirements. Of course, I wanted it to be nice and clean, which for me meant: maintainable and testable. So I wanted to use DI. Resistance The problem was in our team, DI is taboo. It has been brought up a few times, but the gods do not approve. But that did not discourage me. My Move This may sound weird but third-party libraries are usually not approved by our architect team (think: "thou shalt not speak of Unity, Ninject, NHibernate, Moq or NUnit, lest I cut your finger"). So instead of using an established DI container, I wrote an extremely simple container. It basically wired up all your dependencies on startup, injects any dependencies (constructor/property) and disposed any disposable objects at the end of the web request. It was extremely lightweight and just did what we needed. And then I asked them to review it. The Response Well, to make it short. I was met with heavy resistance. The main argument was, "We don't need to add this layer of complexity to an already complex project". Also, "It's not like we will be plugging in different implementations of components". And "We want to keep it simple, if possible just stuff everything into one assembly. DI is an uneeded complexity with no benefit". Finally, My Question How would you handle my situation? I am not good in presenting my ideas, and I would like to know how people would present their argument. Of course, I am assuming that like me, you prefer to use DI. If you don't agree, please do say why so I can see the other side of the coin. It would be really interesting to see the point of view of someone who disagrees. Update Thank you for everyone's answers. It really puts things into perspective. It's nice enough to have another set of eyes to give you feedback, fifteen is really awesome! This are really great answers and helped me see the issue from different sides, but I can only choose one answer, so I will just pick the top voted one. Thanks everyone for taking the time to answer. I have decided that it is probably not the best time to implement DI, and we are not ready for it. Instead, I will concentrate my efforts on making the design testable and attempt to present automated unit testing. I am aware that writing tests is additional overhead and if ever it is decided that the additional overhead is not worth it, personally I would still see it as a win situation since the design is still testable. And if ever testing or DI is a choice in future, the design can easily handle it.

  Read the article

• Customizing configuration with Dependency Injection

  - by mathieu

  I'm designing a small application infrastructure library, aiming to simplify development of ASP.NET MVC based applications. Main goal is to enforce convention over configuration. Hovewer, I still want to make some parts "configurable" by developpers. I'm leaning towards the following design: public interface IConfiguration { SomeType SomeValue; } // this one won't get registered in container protected class DefaultConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Default; } } } // declared inside 3rd party library, will get registered in container protected class CustomConfiguration : IConfiguration { public SomeType SomeValue { get { return SomeType.Custom; } } } And the "service" class : public class Service { private IConfiguration conf = new DefaultConfiguration(); // optional dependency, if found, will be set to CustomConfiguration by DI container public IConfiguration Conf { get { return conf; } set { conf = value; } } public void Configure() { DoSomethingWith( Conf ); } } There, the "configuration" part is clearly a dependency of the service class, but it this an "overuse" of DI ?

  Read the article

• Dependency Injection: Only for single-instance objects?

  - by HappyDeveloper

  What if I want to also decouple my application, from classes like Product or User? (which usually have more than one instance) Take a look at this example: class Controller { public function someAction() { $product_1 = new Product(); $product_2 = new Product(); // do something with the products } } Is it right to say that Controller now depends on Product? I was thinking that we could decouple them too (as we would with single-instance objects like Database) In this example, however ugly, they are decoupled: class Controller { public function someAction(ProductInterface $new_product) { $product_1 = clone $new_product; $product_2 = clone $new_product; // do something with the products } } Has anyone done something like this before? Is it excessive?

  Read the article

• JSP Model 2 Architecture and Dependency Injection

  - by Robert

  If I'm writing a web application that uses the model 2 architecture, is it possible to use the Google Guice framework (or really any IoC container)? The reason I ask this question is because everything I've researched about DI, IoC, et cetera always uses Spring, Hibernate or some other framework/container in their examples. I'm just using Java classes, controllers, and JSP's to build this application and I can't find any good documentation about the subject.

  Read the article

• Please recommend citations for source code documentation standards

  - by Aerik

  I'm trying to convince another group in my company that they need to provide more documentation in their source code (they want to hand off the code to my group) but they're treating it as a "nice to have". In my view, it's a necessity. I've run a source code analysis tool and it's showing about 10% comment lines - but looking at the source code, most of that is coming from entire functions that the author has commented out. Can anyone provide some authoritative citations / references for documentation / comment standards for source code? (In case it matters, we're a C# house, with a little Matlab thrown in).

  Read the article

• Does code-generation increase the code quality?

  - by platzhirsch

  Arguing for code-generation I am looking for some reasons, if howsoever, code generation increases the code quality, respectively is in favor for quality insurance. To clarify what I mean with code-generation I can talk only about a project of mine: We use XML files to describe different relationships, in fact our database schema. These XML files are used to generate our ORM framework and HTML forms which can be used to add, delete and modify entities. To my mind, it increases the quality, as the human error is reduced. If someone was implemented wrong, it is broken in the model. This is good, because the error might appear a lot faster, as more generated code is broken, too.

  Read the article

• How to measure code quality? [closed]

  - by Lo Wai Lun

  Is there a methodology or any objective standard to determine whether the code of the project is well-written? How to measure in a structural and scientific manner to access the quality of the code? Many people say code review is important and always do encapsulation and data abstraction to ensure the quality. How can we determine the quality? Can a structural, organised software design diagrams drawn implies good quality of code ? If we type the code with good cautions of encapsulation and data abstraction, why review anyway?

  Read the article

• Review quality of code

  - by magol

  I have been asked to quality review two code bases. I've never done anything like that, and need advice on how to perform it and report it. Background There are two providers of code, one in VB and one in C (ISO 9899:1999 (C99)). These two programs do not work so well together, and of course, the two suppliers blames each other. I will therefore as a independent person review both codes, on a comprehensive level review the quality of the codes to find out where it is most likely that the problem lies. I will not try to find problems, but simply review the quality and how simple it is to manage and understand the code. Edit: I have yet not received much information about what the problem consists of. I've just been told that I will examine the code in terms of quality. Not so much more. I do not know the background to why they took this decision.

  Read the article

• Is Code Complete still Code Complete? [closed]

  - by Peter Turner

  It's been quite a few years since Code Complete was published. I really love the book, I keep it in the bathroom at the office and read a little out of it once or twice a day. But I don't think it's possible to call Code Complete, "Code Complete" when it doesn't have language features that even Delphi has, like anonymous methods and generics. What key sections are missing from this book, and what should be deprecated?

  Read the article

• How to Code Faster (Without Sacrificing Quality)

  - by ashes999

  I've been a professional coder for a several years. The comments about my code have generally been the same: writes great code, well-tested, but could be faster. So how do I become a faster coder, without sacrificing quality? For the sake of this question, I'm going to limit the scope to C#, since that's primarily what I code (for fun) -- or Java, which is similar enough in many ways that matter. Things that I'm already doing: Write the minimal solution that will get the job done Write a slew of automated tests (prevents regressions) Write (and use) reusable libraries for all kinds of things Use well-known technologies where they work well (eg. Hibernate) Use design patterns where they fit into place (eg. Singleton) These are all great, but I don't feel like my speed is increasing over time. I do care, because if I can do something to increase my productivity (even by 10%), that's 10% faster than my competitors. (Not that I have any.) Besides which, I've consistently gotten this feeback from my managers -- whether it was small-scale Flash development or enterprise Java/C++ development. Edit: There seem to be a lot of questions about what I mean by fast, and how I know I'm slow. Let me clarify with some more details. I worked in small and medium-sized teams (5-50 people) in various companies over various projects and various technologies (Flash, ASP.NET, Java, C++). The observation of my managers (which they told me directly) is that I'm "slow." Part of this is because a significant number of my peers sacrificed quality for speed; they wrote code that was buggy, hard to read, hard to maintain, and difficult to write automated tests for. My code generally is well-documented, readable, and testable. At Oracle, I would consistently solve bugs slower than other team-members. I know this, because I would get comments to that effect; this means that other (yes, more senior and experienced) developers could do my work in less time than it took me, at nearly the same quality (readability, maintainability, and testability). Why? What am I missing? How can I get better at this? My end goal is simple: if I can make product X in 40 hours today, and I can improve myself somehow so that I can create the same product at 20, 30, or even 38 hours tomorrow, that's what I want to know -- how do I get there? What process can I use to continually improve? I had thought it was about reusing code, but that's not enough, it seems.

  Read the article

• Picking a code review tool

  - by marcog

  We are a startup looking to migrate from Fogbugz/Kiln to a new issue tracker/code review system. We are very happy with Jira, especially the configurability, but we are undecided on a code review tool. We have been trialing Bitbucket, but it doesn't fit our workflow well. Here are the problems we have identified with BB: Comments can be hard to find: when commenting on code not visible in the diff when code that is commented on is later changed viewing the full file doesn't include comments (also doesn't show changes) Viewing comments on individual commits can be a pain We have the implementer merge the diff and close the issue, whereas pull requests are more suited to the open source model where someone with commit rights merges We would like to automate creation of the code review (either from Jira or a command line tool) No syntax highlighting Once the pull request exceeds a certain size, BB won't show the whole thing and you have to view individual commits Linking BB pull requests to Jira issues is a bit janky: we have a pull request URL field on Jira, but this doesn't work when there are changes in multiple repositories Does anyone have any good suggestion given the above? We are tight on budget, and Jira integration is a big plus. We also have multiple commits per issue, and would like to have the option of viewing individual commits in the review. It might also be worth noting that we have a separate reviewer and tester for each issue.

  Read the article

• Code Golf: Code 39 Bar Code

  - by gwell

  The challenge The shortest code by character count to draw an ASCII representation of a Code 39 bar code. Wikipedia article about Code 39: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_39 Input The input will be a string of legal characters for Code 39 bar codes. This means 43 characters are valid: 0-9 A-Z (space) and -.$/+%. The * character will not appear in the input as it is used as the start and stop characters. Output Each character encoded in Code 39 bar codes have nine elements, five bars and four spaces. Bars will be represented with # characters, and spaces will be represented with the space character. Three of the nine elements will be wide. The narrow elements will be one character wide, and the wide elements will be three characters wide. A inter-character space of a single space should be added between each character pattern. The pattern should be repeated so that the height of the bar code is eight characters high. The start/stop character * (bWbwBwBwb) would be represented like this: # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^ | | || | | | ||| narrow bar -+ | || | | | ||| wide space ---+ || | | | ||| narrow bar -----+| | | | ||| narrow space ------+ | | | ||| wide bar --------+ | | ||| narrow space ----------+ | ||| wide bar ------------+ ||| narrow space --------------+|| narrow bar ---------------+| inter-character space ----------------+ The start and stop character * will need to be output at the start and end of the bar code. No quiet space will need to be included before or after the bar code. No check digit will need to be calculated. Full ASCII Code39 encoding is not required, just the standard 43 characters. No text needs to be printed below the ASCII bar code representation to identify the output contents. The character # can be replaced with another character of higher density if wanted. Using the full block character U+2588, would allow the bar code to actually scan when printed. Test cases Input: ABC Output: # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # ### # # ### ### ### # # # # # ### ### # Input: 1/3 Output: # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # ### # # # ### # # # # # ### ### # # # # # ### ### # Input: - $ (minus space dollar) Output: # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # # # ### ### # # # # ### ### # ### # ### # # # # # # # # ### ### # Code count includes input/output (full program).

  Read the article

• Good fix vs Quick fix [duplicate]

  - by Andrea Girardi

  This question already has an answer here: Does craftsmanship pay off? [duplicate] 16 answers Good design: How much hackyness is acceptable? [duplicate] 9 answers How do you balance between “do it right” and “do it ASAP” in your daily work? 14 answers Let's start from this principle: quality is a feature that you can't add to a project in the middle of the development process. This is the scenario: two weeks to go live with my project and, one of the developers added a specific method used only for one web application to our framework (Our framework is a bounce of java classes used to extract content from MongoDB, Alfresco, mySql and it's used by web applications). I'm the team leader and I told him to generalize the method to keep the framework to keep reusable but he said "no, I prefer don't do that because there are a lot of bugs that need to be fixed". The manager is agree with him and of course I'm not. Is it better to made extra effort to keep a framework free from any specific implementation (probably used only by one web application) or just add the methods because it works? So, my question is: is it correct to write code that only works or is better to write code that works but it doesn't sucks (i.e. adding embedded value, specific methods, extra classes, add column to database, etc)? How is it possible to justify the extra time (to be honest, this kind of fix requires 10 minutes extra to write a good generic code) to the management? How is possible to argue it's the right way to write code to young developers and PM? in general, good fix or quick fix? Ah, 10 minutes after I get the email from PM, he asked me why on a url of application 2 there was the name of application 1 during the login? I like to quote Jeff Atwood: "Don't leave "broken windows" (bad designs, wrong decisions, or poor code) unrepaired. Fix each one as soon as it is discovered. " Excerpt From: Hyperink. "How-To-Stop-Sucking-And-Be-Awesome-Instead." iBooks.

  Read the article

• IoC / Dependency Injection - please explain code versus XML

  - by steve.macdonald

  I understand basically how IoC frameworks work, however one thing I don't quite get is how code-based config is supposed to work. With XML I understand how you could add a new assembly to a deployed application, then change the config in XML to include it. If the application is already deployed (i.e., compiled in some form) then how can code changes be made without recompiling? Or is that what people do, just change config in code and recompile?

  Read the article

• How to evaluate the quality of Rails code?

  - by Fortuity

  In a code review, what do you look for to assess a developer's expertise? Given an opportunity to look at a developer's work on a real-world project, what tell-tale signs are a tip-off to carelessness or lack of experience? Conversely, where do you look in the code to find evidence of a developer's skill or knowledge of best practices? For example, if I'm looking at a typical Rails app, I would be happy to see the developer is using RSpec (showing a commitment to using test-driven development and knowledge that RSpec is currently more popular than the default TestUnit). But in examining the specs for a Rails model, I see that the developer is testing associations, which might indicate a lack of real understanding of Rails testing requirements (since such tests are redundant given that they only test what's already implemented and tested in ActiveRecord). More generally, I might look to see if developers are writing their own implementations versus using widely available gems or if they are cleaning up code versus leaving lots of commented-out "leftovers." What helps you determine the skill of a Rails developer? What's your code quality checklist?

  Read the article

• What tools do you use to let you know that methods in your codebase are getting too long?

  - by blueberryfields

  Most people seem to agree that long methods are a code smell - a sign something may not be quite right with the code contained in them. Which tools do you use to detect this smell? clarified title based on responses. also, remember: Your code will live over time, and be edited by multiple programmers Emergency fixes and changes will come in, late at night, when the writer is too tired to pay attention to smells Different programmers use different tools. A contractor with 4 screens set at maximum resolution will have a different idea of acceptable method size In this context, I'm looking for tools and methods which go beyond looking at the size of a method when it's written, or when it's being edited.

  Read the article

• Code Review tools - to use or not?

  - by liortal

  On my dev team, we're doing code reviews, however not in a proper way i believe. The issues our process suffers from: Not enough time is allocated for proper code review. Doing reviews is not mandatory - many times it is simply not done. Devs sit together for reviews, due to lack of another easy mechanism for doing it "offline" without spending both developers' time. My question is: can integration of a tool for code reviews improve the points mentioned above? Is it not needed? I would love to hear from positive/negative experiences.

  Read the article

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