Search Results

Search found 35795 results on 1432 pages for 'upgrade best practice'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 206/1432 | < Previous Page | 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213  | Next Page >

  • Lock thread using somthing other than a object

    - by Scott Chamberlain
    when using a lock does the thing you are locking on have to be a object. For example is this legal static DateTime NextCleanup = DateTime.Now; const TimeSpan CleanupInterval = new TimeSpan(1, 0, 0); private static void DoCleanup() { lock ((object)NextCleanup) { if (NextCleanup < DateTime.Now) { NextCleanup = DateTime.Now.Add(CleanupInterval); System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new System.Threading.WaitCallback(cleanupThread)); } } return; } EDIT-- From reading SLaks' responce I know the above code would be not valid but would this be? static MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); private static void DoCleanup() { lock (myClass) { // } return; }

    Read the article

  • Use of properties vs backing-field inside owner class

    - by whatispunk
    I love auto-implemented properties in C# but lately there's been this elephant standing in my cubicle and I don't know what to do with him. If I use auto-implemented properties (hereafter "aip") then I no longer have a private backing field to use internally. This is fine because the aip has no side-effects. But what if later on I need to add some extra processing in the get or set? Now I need to create a backing-field so I can expand my getters and setters. This is fine for external code using the class, because they won't notice the difference. But now all of the internal references to the aip are going to invoke these side-effects when they access the property. Now all internal access to the once aip must be refactored to use the backing-field. So my question is, what do most of you do? Do you use auto-implemented properties or do you prefer to always use a backing-field? What do you think about properties with side-effects?

    Read the article

  • Performing centralized authorization for multiple applications

    - by Vaibhav
    Here's a question that I have been wrestling with for a while. We have a situation wherein we have a number of applications that we have created. These have grown organically over a period of time. All of these applications have permissions code built into them that controls access to various parts of the application depending on whether the currently logged in user has the necessary permissions or not. Alongside these applications is a utility application which allows an administrator to map users to permissions for all applications - the way it works is that every application has code which reads this external database of the said utility application to check if the currently logged in user has the necessary permission or not. Now, the question is this. Should the user-permissions mapping information reside in and be owned by the applications themselves, or is it okay to have this information reside within an external entity/DB (as in this case the utility application's database). Part of me thinks that application permissions are very specific to the application context itself, so shouldn't be separated from the application itself. But I am not sure. Any comments?

    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

  • Why cast null before checking if object is equal to null?

    - by jacerhea
    I was looking through the "Domain Oriented N-Layered .NET 4.0 Sample App" project and ran across some code that I do not understand. In this project they often use syntax like the following to check arguments for null: public GenericRepository(IQueryableContext context,ITraceManager traceManager) { if (context == (IQueryableContext)null) throw new ArgumentNullException("context", Resources.Messages.exception_ContainerCannotBeNull); Why would you cast null to the type of the object you are checking for null?

    Read the article

  • Where to store global variables like file paths in java ?

    - by Jules Olléon
    In my application I use some icons. Where should I store the path of the directory containing those icons ? The icons are used in different classes so it doesn't really make sense to store them in one of those classes in particular. I read that global variables are evil, but is it acceptable to use a class (eg Commons) containing only public static final fields to store this king of data ? What solution is used in professional applications ?

    Read the article

  • typeof === "undefined" vs. != null

    - by Thor Thurn
    I often see JavaScript code which checks for undefined parameters etc. this way: if (typeof input !== "undefined") { // do stuff } This seems kind of wasteful, since it involves both a type lookup and a string comparison, not to mention its verbosity. It's needed because 'undefined' could be renamed, though. My question is: How is that code any better than this approach: if (input != null) { // do stuff } As far as I know, you can't redefine null, so it's not going to break unexpectedly. And, because of the type-coercion of the != operator, this checks for both undefined and null... which is often exactly what you want (e.g. for optional function parameters). Yet this form does not seem widespread, and it even causes JSLint to yell at you for using the evil != operator. Why is this considered bad style?

    Read the article

  • How to handle recurring execution?

    - by ShaneC
    I am trying to validate the solution I came up for what I think is a fairly typical problem. I have a service running and every 10 minutes it should do something. I've ended up with the following: private bool isRunning = true; public void Execute() { while(isRunning) { if(isRunning) { DoSomething(); m_AutoResetEvent.WaitOne(new Timespan(0, 10, 0)); } } } public void Stop() { isRunning = false; m_AutoResetEvent.Set(); } The immediate potential problems I can see is that I'm not doing any sort of locking around the isRunning modification in Stop() which gets called by another thread but I'm not sure I really need to? The worst that I think could happen is that it runs one extra cycle. Beyond that are there any obvious problems with this code? Is there a better way to solve this problem that I'm unaware of?

    Read the article

  • Where should global Application Settings be stored on Windows 7?

    - by Kerido
    Hi everybody, I'm working hard on making my product work seamlessly on Windows 7. The problem is that there is a small set of global (not user-specific) application settings that all users should be able to change. On previous versions I used HKLM\Software\__Company__\__Product__ for that purpose. This allowed Power Users and Administrators to modify the Registry Key and everything worked correctly. Now that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have this UAC feature, by default, even an Administrator cannot access the Key for writing without elevation. A stupid solution would, of course, mean adding requireAdministrator option into the application manifest. But this is really unprofessional since the product itself is extremely far from administration-related tasks. So I need to stay with asInvoker. Another solution could mean programmatic elevation during moments when write access to the Registry Key is required. Let alone the fact that I don't know how to implement that, it's pretty awkward also. It interferes with normal user experience so much that I would hardly consider it an option. What I know should be relatively easy to accomplish is adding write access to the specified Registry Key during installation. I created a separate question for that. This also very similar to accessing a shared file for storing the settings. My feeling is that there must be a way to accomplish what I need, in a way that is secure, straightforward and compatible with all OS'es. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Find recipes that can be cooked from provided ingridients

    - by skaurus
    Sorry for bad English :( Suppose i can preliminary organize recipes and ingredients data in any way. How can i effectively conduct search of recipes by user-provided ingredients, preferably sorted by max match - so, first going recipes that use maximum of provided ingridients and do not contain any other ingrs, after them recipes that uses less of provided set and still not any other ingrs, after them recipes with minimum additional requirements and so on? All i can think about is represent recipe ingridients like bitmasks, and compare required bitmask with all recipes, but it is obviously a bad way to go. And related things like Levenstein distance i don't see how to use here. I believe it should be quite common task...

    Read the article

  • C++ Headers/Source Files

    - by incrediman
    (Duplicate of C++ Code in Header Files) What is the standard way to split up C++ classes between header and source files? Am I supposed to put everything in the header file? Or should I declare the classes in the header file and define them in a .cpp file (source file)? Sorry if I'm shaky on the terminology here (declare, define, etc). So what's the standard?

    Read the article

  • What real life bad habits has programming given you? [closed]

    - by Jacob T. Nielsen
    Programming has given me a lot of bad habits and it continues to give me more everyday. But I have also gotten some bad habits from the mindset that I have put myself in. There simply are some things that are deeply rooted in my nature, though some of them I wish I could get rid of. A few: Looking for polymorphism, inheritance and patterns in all of God's creations. Explaining the size of something in pixels and colors in hex code. Using code related abstract terms in everyday conversations. How have you been damaged?

    Read the article

  • Access of private field of another object in copy constructors - Really a problem?

    - by DR
    In my Java application I have some copy-constructors like this public MyClass(MyClass src) { this.field1 = src.field1; this.field2 = src.field2; this.field3 = src.field3; ... } Now Netbeans 6.9 warns about this and I wonder what is wrong with this code? My concerns: Using the getters might introduce unwanted side-effects. The new object might no longer be considered a copy of the original. If it is recommended using the getters, wouldn't it be more consistent if one would use setters for the new instance as well?

    Read the article

  • How do we name test methods where we are checking for more than one condition?

    - by Sandbox
    I follow the technique specified in Roy Osherove's The Art Of Unit Testing book while naming test methods - MethodName_Scenario_Expectation. It suits perfectly well for my 'unit' tests. But,for tests that I write in 'controller' or 'coordinator' class, there isn't necessarily a method which I want to test. For these tests, I generate multiple conditions which make up one scenario and then I verify the expectation. For example, I may set some properties on different instances, generate an event and then verify that my expectation from controller/coordinator is being met. Now, my controller handles events using a private event handler. Here my scenario is that, I set some properties, say 3 condition1,condition2 and condition3 Also, my scenario includes an event is raised I don't have a method name as my event handler is private. How do I name such a test method?

    Read the article

  • Object Deletion: use parent or not

    - by metdos
    Which one do you prefer to delete objects? Especially in QT, but other practices are also welcome. These two alternatives seem same to me, are they? 1.Bound to another class, and destroy when it is destroyed. SomeClass::SomeClass{ socket_ = new QTcpSocket(this); } or 2.Destroy in the destructor of class SomeClass::SomeClass{ socket_ = new QTcpSocket(); } SomeClass::~SomeClass{ delete socket_; }

    Read the article

  • Bad Design? Constructor of composition uses `this`

    - by tanascius
    Example: class MyClass { Composition m_Composition; void MyClass() { m_Composition = new Composition( this ); } } I am interested in using depenency-injection here. So I will have to refactor the constructor to something like: void MyClass( Composition composition ) { m_Composition = composition; } However I get a problem now, since the Composition-object relies on the object of type MyClass which is just created. Can a dependency container resolve this? Is it supposed to do so? Or is it just bad design from the beginning on?

    Read the article

  • Continuous integration with multiple branch development

    - by ryanprayogo
    In the project that I'm working on, we are using SVN with 'Stable Trunk' strategy. What that means is that for each bug that is found, QA opens a bug ticket and assigns it to a developer. Then, a developer fixes that bug and checks it in a branch (off trunk, let's call this the bug branch) and that branch will only contain fixes for that particular bug ticket When we decided to do a release, for each bug fixes that we want to release to the customer, a developer will merge all the fixes from several bug branch to trunk and proceed with the normal QA cycle. The problem is that we use trunk as the codebase for our CI job (Hudson, specifically), and therefore, for all commits to the bug branch, it will miss the daily build until it gets merged to trunk when we decided to release the new version of the software. Obviously, that defeats the purpose of having CI. What is the proper way to fix this issue?

    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

  • Is Unit Testing worth the effort?

    - by The Talking Walnut
    I am working to integrate unit testing into the development process on the team I work on and there are some skeptics. What are some good ways to convince the skeptical developers on the team of the value of Unit Testing? In my specific case we would be adding Unit Tests as we add functionality or fixed bugs. Unfortunately our code base does not lend itself to easy testing.

    Read the article

  • What's quicker and better to determine if an array key exists in PHP?

    - by alex
    Consider these 2 examples $key = 'jim'; // example 1 if (isset($array[$key])) { doWhatIWant(); } // example 2 if (array_key_exists($key, $array)) { doWhatIWant(); } I'm interested in knowing if either of these are better. I've always used the first, but have seen a lot of people use the second example on this site. So, which is better? Faster? Clearer intent? Update Thanks for the quality answers. I now understand the difference between the 2. A benchmark states that isset() alone is quicker than array_key_exists(). However, if you want the isset() to behave like array_key_exists() it is slower.

    Read the article

  • read files from directory and filter files from Java

    - by Adnan
    The following codes goes through all directories and sub-directories and outputs just .java files; import java.io.File; public class DirectoryReader { private static String extension = "none"; private static String fileName; public static void main(String[] args ){ String dir = "C:/tmp"; File aFile = new File(dir); ReadDirectory(aFile); } private static void ReadDirectory(File aFile) { File[] listOfFiles = aFile.listFiles(); if (aFile.isDirectory()) { listOfFiles = aFile.listFiles(); if(listOfFiles!=null) { for(int i=0; i < listOfFiles.length; i++ ) { if (listOfFiles[i].isFile()) { fileName = listOfFiles[i].toString(); int dotPos = fileName.lastIndexOf("."); if (dotPos > 0) { extension = fileName.substring(dotPos); } if (extension.equals(".java")) { System.out.println("FILE:" + listOfFiles[i] ); } } if(listOfFiles[i].isDirectory()) { ReadDirectory(listOfFiles[i]); } } } } } } Is this efficient? What could be done to increase the speed? All ideas are welcome.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213  | Next Page >