Search Results

Search found 30072 results on 1203 pages for 'website design'.

Page 206/1203 | < Previous Page | 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213  | Next Page >

  • How to determine if class meets single responsibility principle ?

    - by user1483278
    Single Responsibility Principle is based on high cohesion principle. The difference between the two is that highly cohesive classes feature a set of responsibilities that are strongly related, while classes adhering to SRP have just one responsibility. But how do we determine whether particular class features a set of responsibilities and is thus just highly cohesive, or whether it has only one responsibility and is thus adhering to SRP? Namely, isn't it more or less subjective, since some may find class very granular ( and as such will consider a class as adhering to SRP ), while others may find it not granular enough?

    Read the article

  • C++: calling non-member functions with the same syntax of member ones

    - by peoro
    One thing I'd like to do in C++ is to call non-member functions with the same syntax you call member functions: class A { }; void f( A & this ) { /* ... */ } // ... A a; a.f(); // this is the same as f(a); Of course this could only work as long as f is not virtual (since it cannot appear in A's virtual table. f doesn't need to access A's non-public members. f doesn't conflict with a function declared in A (A::f). I'd like such a syntax because in my opinion it would be quite comfortable and would push good habits: calling str.strip() on a std::string (where strip is a function defined by the user) would sound a lot better than calling strip( str );. most of the times (always?) classes provide some member functions which don't require to be member (ie: are not virtual and don't use non-public members). This breaks encapsulation, but is the most practical thing to do (due to point 1). My question here is: what do you think of such feature? Do you think it would be something nice, or something that would introduce more issues than the ones it aims to solve? Could it make sense to propose such a feature to the next standard (the one after C++0x)? Of course this is just a brief description of this idea; it is not complete; we'd probably need to explicitly mark a function with a special keyword to let it work like this and many other stuff.

    Read the article

  • Should a web designer know server-side coding?

    - by Rasoul Zabihi
    We're implementing an CMS based on ASP.NET MVC. Now, any designer should be able to provide themes for this CMS. But to write a theme, they need to be able to modify the generated HTML, thus the concept of View. In other words, they should be capable to either modify current views, or create new views from scratch, to fit their requirements. However, now we're not sure that we're taking the right path. Should a web designer (HTML, CSS, JavaScript + Photoshop) really know about server-side platforms like Razor or PHP, or classic ASP, or anything else?

    Read the article

  • How important is index size when searching?

    - by Michael K
    My company has recently began using Apache Solr to search its data. As we learn how to use it we have gone down the path of indexing multiple fields to get the results we need. Most of these are either N-Grammed or Edge-N-Grammed. Gramming by nature takes up a lot of space, which takes more time to search. Space is cheap, but time is less so. Index time is not too important, since a delta-import (only get the changes since last index) is extremely quick and you only pay a penalty on the first import. What we've not been able to determine is what effect the index size has on query times. Obviously a larger index takes longer to search, but the time added by n-gramming a field is difficult to predict. How do you determine whether a field is worth gramming? Can you predict how much longer a query will take when you gram a field?

    Read the article

  • Gathering IP address and workstation information; does it belong in a state class?

    - by p.campbell
    I'm writing an enterprisey utility that collects exception information and writes to the Windows Event Log, sends an email, etc. This utility class will be used by all applications in the corporation: web, BizTalk, Windows Services, etc. Currently this class: holds state given to it via public properties calls out to .NET Framework methods to gather information about runtime details. Included are call to various properties and methods from System.Environment, Reflection details, etc. This implementation has the benefit of allowing all those callers not to have to make these same calls themselves. This means less code for the caller to forget, screw up, etc. Should this state class (please what's the phrase I'm looking for [like DTO]?) know how to resolve/determine runtime details (like the IP address and machine name that it's running on)? It seems to me on second thought that it's meant to be a class that should hold state, and not know how to call out to the .NET Framework to find information. var myEx = new AppProblem{MachineName="Riker"}; //Will get "Riker 10.0.0.1" from property MachineLongDesc Console.WriteLine("full machine details: " + myEx.MachineLongDesc); public class AppProblem { public string MachineName{get;set;} public string MachineLongDesc{ get{ if(string.IsNullOrEmpty(this.MachineName) { this.MachineName = Environment.MachineName; } return this.MachineName + " " + GetCurrentIP(); } } private string GetCurrentIP() { return System.Net.Dns.GetHostEntry(this.MachineName) .AddressList.First().ToString(); } } This code was written by hand from memory, and presented for simplicity, trying to illustrate the concept.

    Read the article

  • doing a full permutation search and replace on a string

    - by user73307
    I'm writing an app that does something like a custom number (licence) place generator tool where if I ask for the plate "robin" it will suggest I try: r0bin rob1n r0b1n Are there any published algorithms which can do this? It has to be able to handle replacing single letters with multiples, e.g. m with rn and vise-versa and not fall over if it replaces an i with an l then comes to check the l and replaces it back to an i. The list of what gets swapped with what is going to be user input but I'm not expecting a huge list, possibly 10 pairs at most. I'll be implementing this in Ruby or Python but I should be able to convert code from any other language.

    Read the article

  • Should I use a config file or database for storing business rules?

    - by foiseworth
    I have recently been reading The Pragmatic Programmer which states that: Details mess up our pristine code—especially if they change frequently. Every time we have to go in and change the code to accommodate some change in business logic, or in the law, or in management's personal tastes of the day, we run the risk of breaking the system—of introducing a new bug. Hunt, Andrew; Thomas, David (1999-10-20). The Pragmatic Programmer: From Journeyman to Master (Kindle Locations 2651-2653). Pearson Education (USA). Kindle Edition. I am currently programming a web app that has some models that have properties that can only be from a set of values, e.g. (not actual example as the web app data confidential): light-type = sphere / cube / cylinder The light type can only be the above three values but according to TPP I should always code as if they could change and place their values in a config file. As there are several incidents of this throughout the app, my question is: Should I store possibly values like these in: a config file: 'light-types' = array(sphere, cube, cylinder), 'other-type' = value, 'etc = etc-value a single table in a database with one line for each config item a database with a table for each config item (e.g. table: light_types; columns: id, name) some other way? Many thanks for any assistance / expertise offered.

    Read the article

  • What is MVC, really?

    - by NickC
    As a serious programmer, how do you answer the question What is MVC? In my mind, MVC is sort of a nebulous topic — and because of that, if your audience is a learner, then you're free to describe it in general terms that are unlikely to be controversial. However, if you are speaking to a knowledgeable audience, especially an interviewer, I have a hard time thinking of a direction to take that doesn't risk a reaction of "well that's not right!...". We all have different real-world experience, and I haven't truly met the same MVC implementation pattern twice. Specifically, there seem to be disagreements regarding strictness, component definition, separation of parts (what piece fits where), etc. So, how should I explain MVC in a way that is correct, concise, and uncontroversial?

    Read the article

  • Can the Abstract Factory pattern be considered as a case of polymorphism?

    - by rogcg
    I was looking for a pattern/solution that allows me call a method as a runtime exception in a group of different methods without using Reflection. I've recently become aware of the Abstract Factory Pattern. To me, it looks so much like polymorphism, and I thought it could be a case of polymorphism but without the super class WidgetFactory, as you can see in the example of the link above. Am I correct in this assumption?

    Read the article

  • Implementing traffic conditions in TORCS

    - by user1837811
    I am working on a project about "Effects of Traffic conditions and Track Complexity on Car Driving Behavior". Is it possible to implement traffic in TORCS, or should I use another car simulator? By the word "traffic" I mean there are cars running on both tracks in both directions and I can detect the distances, direction and speed of these cars. Depending on this information I can decide whether I should slow down, speed up and calculate the correct timing to overtake.

    Read the article

  • How to Structure a Trinary state in DB and Application

    - by ABMagil
    How should I structure, in the DB especially, but also in the application, a trinary state? For instance, I have user feedback records which need to be reviewed before they are presented to the general public. This means a feedback reviewer must see the unreviewed feedback, then approve or reject them. I can think of a couple ways to represent this: Two boolean flags: Seen/Unseen and Approved/Rejected. This is the simplest and probably the smallest database solution (presumably boolean fields are simple bits). The downside is that there are really only three states I care about (unseen/approved/rejected) and this creates four states, including one I don't care about (a record which is seen but not approved or rejected is essentially unseen). String column in the DB with constants/enum in application. Using Rating::APPROVED_STATE within the application and letting it equal whatever it wants in the DB. This is a larger column in the db and I'm concerned about doing string comparisons whenever I need these records. Perhaps mitigatable with an index? Single boolean column, but allow nulls. A true is approved, a false is rejected. A null is unseen. Not sure the pros/cons of this solution. What are the rules I should use to guide my choice? I'm already thinking in terms of DB size and the cost of finding records based on state, as well as the readability of code the ends up using this structure.

    Read the article

  • How to handle monetary values in PHP and MySql?

    - by Songo
    I've inherited a huge pile of legacy code written in PHP on top of a MySQL database. The thing I noticed is that the application uses doubles for storage and manipulation of data. Now I came across of numerous posts mentioning how double are not suited for monetary operations because of the rounding errors. However, I have yet to come across a complete solution to how monetary values should be handled in PHP code and stored in a MySQL database. Is there a best practice when it comes to handling money specifically in PHP? Things I'm looking for are: How should the data be stored in the database? column type? size? How should the data be handling in normal addition, subtraction. multiplication or division? When should I round the values? How much rounding is acceptable if any? Is there a difference between handling large monetary values and low ones? Note: A VERY simplified sample code of how I might encounter money values in everyday life: $a= $_POST['price_in_dollars']; //-->(ex: 25.06) will be read as a string should it be cast to double? $b= $_POST['discount_rate'];//-->(ex: 0.35) value will always be less than 1 $valueToBeStored= $a * $b; //--> any hint here is welcomed $valueFromDatabase= $row['price']; //--> price column in database could be double, decimal,...etc. $priceToPrint=$valueFromDatabase * 0.25; //again cast needed or not? I hope you use this sample code as a means to bring out more use cases and not to take it literally of course. Bonus Question If I'm to use an ORM such as Doctrine or PROPEL, how different will it be to use money in my code.

    Read the article

  • Collision Systems Implementation

    - by hrr4
    Just curious what might be a good way to implement a decent collision system. As a class inherited by a base Entity class? Currently I'm stuck and could just use a couple better ideas than my own. Any help is appreciated! Edit: Sorry, it's 2D Collisioning but honestly, I'm not looking for specific collision methods. I'm looking more about the lines of implementation. Just curious of some of the common methods of how to implement collision systems such as: Should the entire collision system be it's own class? What, if anything, should be inheritable? These are some of my questions. Sorry for the confusion.

    Read the article

  • Player & Level class structure in 2D python console game?

    - by Markus Meskanen
    I'm trying to create a 2D console game, where I have a player who can freely move around in a level (~map, but map is a reserved keyword) and interfere with other objects. Levels construct out of multiple Blocks, such as player(s), rocks, etc. Here's the Block class: class Block(object): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0, char=' ', solid=False): self.x = x self.y = y self.char = char self.solid = solid As you see, each block has a position (x, y) and a character to represent the block when it's printed. Each block also has a solid attribute, defining whether it can overlap with other solids or not. (Two solid blocks cannot overlap) I've now created few subclasses from Block (Rock might be useless for now) class Rock(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Rock, self).__init__(x, y, 'x', True) class Player(Block): def __init__(self, x=0, y=0): super(Player, self).__init__(x, y, 'i', True) def move_left(self, x=1): ... # How do I make sure Player wont overlap with rocks? self.x -= x And here's the Level class: class Level(object): def __init__(self, name='', blocks=None): self.name = name self.blocks = blocks or [] Only way I can think of is to store a Player instance into Level's attributes (self.player=Player(), or so) and then give Level a method: def player_move_left(self): for block in self.blocks: if block.x == self.player.x - 1 and block.solid: return False But this doesn't really make any sense, why have a Player class if it can't even be moved without Level? Imo. player should be moved by a method inside Player. Am I wrong at something here, if not, how could I implement such behavior?

    Read the article

  • Serialized values or separate table, which is more efficient?

    - by Aravind
    I have a Rails model email_condition_string with a word column in it. Now I have another model called request_creation_email_config with the following columns admin_filter_group:references vendor_service:references email_condition_string:references email_condition_string has many request_creation_email_config and request_creation_email_config belongs to email_condition_string. Instead of this model a colleague of mine is suggesting that strong the word inside the same model as comma separated values is efficient than storing as a separate model. Is that alright?

    Read the article

  • Anemic Domain Model, Business Logic and DataMapper (PHP)

    - by sunwukung
    I've implemented a rudimentary ORM layer based on DataMapper (I don't want to use a full blown ORM like Propel/Doctrine - for anything beyond simple fetch/save ops I prefer to access the data directly layer using a SQL abstraction layer). Following the DataMapper pattern, I've endeavoured to keep all persistence operations in the Mapper - including the location of related entities. My Entities have access to their Mapper, although I try not to call Mapper logic from the Entity interface (although this would be simple enough). The result is: // get a mapper and produce an entity $ProductMapper = $di->get('product_mapper'); $Product = $ProductMapper->find('[email protected]','email'); //.. mutaute some values.. save $ProductMapper->save($Product) // uses __get to trigger relation acquisition $Manufacturer = $Product->manufacturer; I've read some articles regarding the concept of an Anemic Domain model, i.e. a Model that does not contain any "business logic". When demonstrating the sort of business logic ideally suited to a Domain Model, however, acquiring related data items is a common example. Therefore I wanted to ask this question: Is persistence logic appropriate in Domain Model objects?

    Read the article

  • Triggering Data Changes in N-Tier

    - by Ryan Kinal
    I've been studying n-tier architectures as of late, particularly in VB.NET with Entity Framework and/or LINQ to SQL. I understand the basic concepts, but have been wondering about best practices in regard to triggering CRUD-type operations from user input/action. So, the arcitecture looks something like the following: [presentation layer] - [business layer] - [data layer] - (database) Getting information from the database into the presentation layer is simple and abstracted. It's just a matter of instantiating a new object from the business layer, which in turn uses the data layer to get at the correct information. However, saving (updating and inserting), and deleting seem to require particular APIs on the relevant business objects. I have to assume this is standard practice, unless a business object will save itself on various operations (which seems inefficient), or on disposal (which seems like it just wouldn't work, or may be unwieldy and unreliable). Should my "savable" business objects all implement a particular "ISavable" or "IDatabaseObject" interface? Is this a recognized (anti-)pattern? Are there other, better patterns I should be using that I'm just unaware of? The TLDR question, I suppose, is How does the presentation layer trigger database changes?

    Read the article

  • Splitting Logic, Data, Layout and "Hacks"

    - by fjdumont
    Sure, we all heard of programming patterns such as MVVM, MVC and such. But that isn't really what I'm looking into as Layout, Data and Logic is already pretty much split up (XML-Layout markup, Database, insert your language of choice here). The platform I am developing for is hard to maintain over the updated versions and older OSes. The project significantly grew up over the last few months and dealing with different platform versions really is a pain. For example simply disabling an user interface control for all existing versions took me around 40 lines of code in the logic layer, wrangling around with invocation, delegation, singletons that provide UI handling and so on. Is there a clean way to keep track of those "hacks" by maybe excluding it into separate classes or even packages? Should I overwrite existing framework code in order to handle my requirements correctly? If so, does that concept have a name?

    Read the article

  • Are null references really a bad thing?

    - by Tim Goodman
    I've heard it said that the inclusion of null references in programming languages is the "billion dollar mistake". But why? Sure, they can cause NullReferenceExceptions, but so what? Any element of the language can be a source of errors if used improperly. And what's the alternative? I suppose instead of saying this: Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman"); // returns null if not found if (c != null) { Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } You could say this: if (Customer.ExistsWithLastName("Goodman")) { Customer c = Customer.GetByLastName("Goodman") // throws error if not found Console.WriteLine(c.FirstName + " " + c.LastName + " is awesome!"); } else { Console.WriteLine("There was no customer named Goodman. How lame!"); } But how is that better? Either way, if you forget to check that the customer exists, you get an exception. I suppose that a CustomerNotFoundException is a bit easier to debug than a NullReferenceException by virtue of being more descriptive. Is that all there is to it?

    Read the article

  • How one could use a live editor

    - by Sathvik
    I was thinking about a live editing environment where code / a source file is synchronized so that, changes made by one user would be carried across to all others editing the file. Something like Google Wave, but for code. Could this kind of an environment be better for the code, as changes are shared instantly? (with revision-control, of course) Has anyone tried (or has had a need for) using a shared environment for code?

    Read the article

  • Patterns for a tree of persistent data with multiple storage options?

    - by Robin Winslow
    I have a real-world problem which I'll try to abstract into an illustrative example. So imagine I have data objects in a tree, where parent objects can access children, and children can access parents: // Interfaces interface IParent<TChild> { List<TChild> Children; } interface IChild<TParent> { TParent Parent; } // Classes class Top : IParent<Middle> {} class Middle : IParent<Bottom>, IChild<Top> {} class Bottom : IChild<Middle> {} // Usage var top = new Top(); var middles = top.Children; // List<Middle> foreach (var middle in middles) { var bottoms = middle.Children; // List<Bottom> foreach (var bottom in bottoms) { var middle = bottom.Parent; // Access the parent var top = middle.Parent; // Access the grandparent } } All three data objects have properties that are persisted in two data stores (e.g. a database and a web service), and they need to reflect and synchronise with the stores. Some objects only request from the web service, some only write to it. Data Mapper My favourite pattern for data access is Data Mapper, because it completely separates the data objects themselves from the communication with the data store: class TopMapper { public Top FetchById(int id) { var top = new Top(DataStore.TopDataById(id)); top.Children = MiddleMapper.FetchForTop(Top); return Top; } } class MiddleMapper { public Middle FetchById(int id) { var middle = new Middle(DataStore.MiddleDataById(id)); middle.Parent = TopMapper.FetchForMiddle(middle); middle.Children = BottomMapper.FetchForMiddle(bottom); return middle; } } This way I can have one mapper per data store, and build the object from the mapper I want, and then save it back using the mapper I want. There is a circular reference here, but I guess that's not a problem because most languages can just store memory references to the objects, so there won't actually be infinite data. The problem with this is that every time I want to construct a new Top, Middle or Bottom, it needs to build the entire object tree within that object's Parent or Children property, with all the data store requests and memory usage that that entails. And in real life my tree is much bigger than the one represented here, so that's a problem. Requests in the object In this the objects request their Parents and Children themselves: class Middle { private List<Bottom> _children = null; // cache public List<Bottom> Children { get { _children = _children ?? BottomMapper.FetchForMiddle(this); return _children; } set { BottomMapper.UpdateForMiddle(this, value); _children = value; } } } I think this is an example of the repository pattern. Is that correct? This solution seems neat - the data only gets requested from the data store when you need it, and thereafter it's stored in the object if you want to request it again, avoiding a further request. However, I have two different data sources. There's a database, but there's also a web service, and I need to be able to create an object from the web service and save it back to the database and then request it again from the database and update the web service. This also makes me uneasy because the data objects themselves are no longer ignorant of the data source. We've introduced a new dependency, not to mention a circular dependency, making it harder to test. And the objects now mask their communication with the database. Other solutions Are there any other solutions which could take care of the multiple stores problem but also mean that I don't need to build / request all the data every time?

    Read the article

  • What is a 'good number' of exceptions to implement for my library?

    - by Fuzz
    I've always wondered how many different exception classes I should implement and throw for various pieces of my software. My particular development is usually C++/C#/Java related, but I believe this is a question for all languages. I want to understand what is a good number of different exceptions to throw, and what the developer community expect of a good library. The trade-offs I see include: More exception classes can allow very fine grain levels of error handling for API users (prone to user configuration or data errors, or files not being found) More exception classes allows error specific information to be embedded in the exception, rather than just a string message or error code More exception classes can mean more code maintenance More exception classes can mean the API is less approachable to users The scenarios I wish to understand exception usage in include: During 'configuration' stage, which might include loading files or setting parameters During an 'operation' type phase where the library might be running tasks and doing some work, perhaps in another thread Other patterns of error reporting without using exceptions, or less exceptions (as a comparison) might include: Less exceptions, but embedding an error code that can be used as a lookup Returning error codes and flags directly from functions (sometimes not possible from threads) Implemented an event or callback system upon error (avoids stack unwinding) As developers, what do you prefer to see? If there are MANY exceptions, do you bother error handling them separately anyway? Do you have a preference for error handling types depending on the stage of operation?

    Read the article

  • "Best fit" to avoid reuse of object instances in a collection

    - by Simon
    Imagine I have a collection of object instances which represent activities for a user to undertake. Dependent on user attributes, I have to randomly select instances to present activities to the user. For some users, I need to present more activities to them than there are available activities in which case, I want to use the following algorithm. If all available activities have already been presented to the user, then re-select a "used" activity, selecting the earliest presented activity ordered by frequency of use. In other words, try to reduce repetition and where repetition is unavoidable, use the instances which have been repeated less often and were presented furthest back in time. Before I go on to code that algorithm, I wondered if there is some existing pattern I can re-use? [EDIT] "Furthest back in time" is not relevant as I will pass the algorithm an ordered collection of used instances where the first entry is the first presented.

    Read the article

  • Avoiding null in a controller

    - by Kevin Burke
    I'm trying to work through how to write this code. def get(params): """ Fetch a user's details, or 404 """ user = User.fetch_by_id(params['id']) if not user: abort(404) # Render some template for the user... What's the best way to handle the case where the lookup fails? One principle says you should avoid returning null values from functions. These lead to mistakes and AttributeErrors etc. later on in the file. Another idea is to have fetch_by_id raise a ValueError or similar if no user exists with that id. However there's a general principle that you shouldn't use exceptions for control flow, either, which doesn't help much. What could be done better in this case?

    Read the article

  • Why do programming languages allow shadowing/hiding of variables and functions?

    - by Simon
    Many of the most popular programming languges (such as C++, Java, Python etc.) have the concept of hiding / shadowing of variables or functions. When I've encountered hiding or shadowing they have been the cause of hard to find bugs and I've never seen a case where I found it necessary to use these features of the languages. To me it would seem better to disallow hiding and shadowing. Does anybody know of a good use of these concepts?

    Read the article

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