Search Results

Search found 16554 results on 663 pages for 'programmers identity'.

Page 208/663 | < Previous Page | 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215  | Next Page >

  • What tools exist for assessing an organisation's development capability?

    - by Eric Smith
    I have a bit of a challenge at work at the moment. Presently (and in fact, for some time now), we have been experiencing the following problems with some in-house maintained applications: Defects (sometimes quite serious) being released into production; The Customer (that is, the relevant business unit) perpetually changing their minds (or appearing to do so) about what issue to work on next; A situation where everyone seems to be in a "fire-fighting" mode a lot of the time; Development staff responding to operational requests from business users; ("operational" here means something that needs to be done in order to continue with business, or perhaps just to make a business user's life a little less painful, as opposed to fixing a bug in the application, or enhancing the application); Now I'm sure this doesn't sound particularly new or surprising to most of the participants on this Q&A site and no prizes for identifying the "usual suspects" when it comes to root causes. My challenge is that I have to persuade the higher-ups to do uncomfortable things in order to address all of this. The folk I need to persuade come from a mixture of the following two cultures: Accounting; IT Infrastructure. I have therefore opted for a strategy that draws from things with-which folk from such a culture would be most comfortable (at least, in my estimation), namely: numbers and tangibles. Of course modern development practitioners know all too well that this sort of thing isn't easily solved using an analytical mindset (some would argue that that mindset is, in fact, entirely inappropriate). Never-the-less, this is the dichotomy with-which I am faced, so that's the stake that I've put in the ground. I would like to be able to do research and use the outputs to present findings in the form of metrics and measures. I am finding it quite difficult, though, to find an agreed-upon methodology and set of templates for assessing an organisations development capability--the only thing that seems applicable is the Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model. The latter, however, seems dated and even then rather vague. So, the question is: Do any tools or methodologies (free or commercial) exist that would assist me in completing this assessment?

    Read the article

  • What source code organization approach helps improve modularity and API/Implementation separation?

    - by Berin Loritsch
    Few languages are as restrictive as Java with file naming standards and project structure. In that language, the file name must match the public class declared in the file, and the file must live in a directory structure matching the class package. I have mixed feelings about that approach. While I never have to guess where a file lives, there's still a lot of empty directories and artificial constraints. There's several languages that define everything about a class in one file, at least by convention. C#, Python (I think), Ruby, Erlang, etc. The commonality in most these languages is that they are object oriented, although that statement can probably be rebuffed (there is one non-OO language in the list already). Finally, there's quite a few languages mostly in the C family that have a separate header and implementation file. For C I think this makes sense, because it is one of the few ways to separate the API interface from implementations. With C it seems that feature is used to promote modularity. Yet, with C++ the way header and implementation files are split seems rather forced. You don't get the same clean API separation that you do with C, and you are forced to include some private details in the header you would rather keep only in the implementation. There's quite a few languages that have a concept that overlaps with interfaces like Java, C#, Go, etc. Some languages use what feels like a hack to provide the same concept like C# using pure virtual abstract classes. Still others don't really have an interface concept and rely on "duck" typing--for example Ruby. Ruby has modules, but those are more along the lines of mixing in behaviors to a class than they are for defining how to interact with a class. In OO terms, interfaces are a powerful way to provide separation between an API client and an API implementation. So to hurry up and ask the question, from a personal experience point of view: Does separation of header and implementation help you write more modular code, or does it get in the way? (it helps to specify the language you are referring to) Does the strict file name to class name scheme of Java help maintainability, or is it unnecessary structure for structure's sake? What would you propose to promote good API/Implementation separation and project maintenance, how would you prefer to do it?

    Read the article

  • Standards for how developers work on their own workstations

    - by Jon Hopkins
    We've just come across one of those situations which occasionally comes up when a developer goes off sick for a few days mid-project. There were a few questions about whether he'd committed the latest version of his code or whether there was something more recent on his local machine we should be looking at, and we had a delivery to a customer pending so we couldn't wait for him to return. One of the other developers logged on as him to see and found a mess of workspaces, many seemingly of the same projects, with timestamps that made it unclear which one was "current" (he was prototyping some bits on versions of the project other than his "core" one). Obviously this is a pain in the neck, however the alternative (which would seem to be strict standards for how each developer works on their own machine to ensure that any other developer can pick things up with a minimum of effort) is likely to break many developers personal work flows and lead to inefficiency on an individual level. I'm not talking about standards for checked-in code, or even general development standards, I'm talking about how a developer works locally, a domain generally considered (in my experience) to be almost entirely under the developers own control. So how do you handle situations like this? Are the one of those things that just happens and you have to deal with, the price you pay for developers being allowed to work in the way that best suits them? Or do you ask developers to adhere to standards in this area - use of specific directories, naming standards, notes on a wiki or whatever? And if so what do your standards cover, how strict are they, how do you police them and so on? Or is there another solution I'm missing? [Assume for the sake of argument that the developer can not be contacted to talk through what he was doing here - even if he could knowing and describing which workspace is which from memory isn't going to be simple and flawless and sometimes people genuinely can't be contacted and I'd like a solution which covers all eventualities.]

    Read the article

  • Project Codenames - Yea or Nay?

    - by rmx
    Where I work, most of our projects have (or at least attempt) descriptive, useful names. However we have a few with names that make no sense: I found that an assembly named WiFi which actually has nothing whatsoever to do with wi-fi, but is a codename. When I asked why, I was told that it's to protect company secrets incase some intern has few too many at the pub on Friday and starts chatting about the brand new 'WiFi' project he's been working on. Its clear that some people find enjoyment in finding silly / amusing codenames for their projects (like in this question). My question is: is it really a good idea to use codenames for your projects or are you better off spending the time to decide upon a descriptive name? My opinion is that in the long-run its better to give your projects relevant names. My reasoning is that if you can't think of a decent name, perhaps you don't really know the requirements well enough. I think there are better ways to 'protect company secrets' and I find it quite confusing when the name does not correlate at all with the content. It's just common sense, surely?! So do you use codenames and what the your reasons for or against this seemingly common, yet annoying (to me at least) practice?

    Read the article

  • Figuring a max repetitive sub-tree in an object tree

    - by bonomo
    I am trying to solve a problem of finding a max repetitive sub-tree in an object tree. By the object tree I mean a tree where each leaf and node has a name. Each leaf has a type and a value of that type associated with that leaf. Each node has a set of leaves / nodes in certain order. Given an object tree that - we know - has a repetitive sub-tree in it. By repetitive I mean 2 or more sub-trees that are similar in everything (names/types/order of sub-elements) but the values of leaves. No nodes/leaves can be shared between sub-trees. Problem is to identify these sub-trees of the max height. I know that the exhaustive search can do the trick. I am rather looking for more efficient approach.

    Read the article

  • Webpage redirection time

    - by Abhijeet Ashok Muneshwar
    I want to calculate time consumed in redirecting from 1 webpage to another webpage. For Example: 1) I am using Facebook in Google Chrome browser. I have shared 1 link on my Facebook profile like below: http://www.webdeveloper.com/ (It's not only Facebook. It can be any domain having link to another domain). 2) When I click on this link from my Facebook profile, then this website will open in new tab. 3) I want to calculate time difference in miliseconds or microseconds between below two events: First Event: Time of clicking link "http://www.webdeveloper.com/" from my Facebook profile. Second Event: Time of completely loading webpage of "http://www.webdeveloper.com/". Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Haskell have type-level lambda abstractions?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    Are there some theoretical reasons for that (like that the type checking or type inference would become undecidable), or practical reasons (too difficult to implement properly)? Currently, we can wrap things into newtype like newtype Pair a = Pair (a, a) and then have Pair :: * -> * but we cannot do something like ?(a:*). (a,a). (There are some languages that have them, for example, Scala does.)

    Read the article

  • Choosing between PHP and Java

    - by user996459
    I've recently started University, studying Computing and IT. My Uni focuses on Java. My study will consist of mathematics, 'boring' IT related stuff and several Java units such as: -Software development with Java, -Object-oriented Java programming, -Relational databases: theory and practice (using Java), -Developing concurrent distributed systems (using Java), -Software engineering with objects (using Java). I'm trying to determine whenever I should focus on Java and self study it in my free time so that I can actually learn and become a competent Java programmer by the time I graduate, or, only do enough Java to get the degree but in my free time self study PHP and related web technologies. Job market in my area appears to be balanced for the two, salary and availability wise. Regardless of which patch I'd take getting a job should not be a problem however Java does seem to pay almost insignificantly more. In terms of my interest and career expectations, I don't have anything specific planned. I very much enjoy writing code but I don't really care what kind. So far I equally enjoyed writing C, AutoIT, vb.net, PHP and even Java. Basically, I'm happy as long as I get to type in code (be it low level programming or web back-end scripting). So the question really is, would my Uni and their Java focus profit me should I choose PHP? Or should I buy what my university is selling and stick to Java like a fly sticks to poop...? Apologies for cryptic writing, still learning English

    Read the article

  • Editing service for blogger with terrible English grammar

    - by Josh Moore
    I would like to write a technical blog. However, the biggest things holding me back is my poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar (I have all these problems even though I am a native English speaker). I am thinking about using a professional editing/proofreading service to fix my blog posts before I post them. However, given the content will be technical in nature (some articles will get into details of programming) and I would like to write them in markdown, I am not sure if the general online services will be a good fit. Can you recommend a editor (or company) that you like that can provide this service?

    Read the article

  • Odd company release cycle: Go Distributed Source Control?

    - by MrLane
    sorry about this long post, but I think it is worth it! I have just started with a small .NET shop that operates quite a bit differently to other places that I have worked. Unlike any of my previous positions, the software written here is targetted at multiple customers and not every customer gets the latest release of the software at the same time. As such, there is no "current production version." When a customer does get an update, they also get all of the features added to he software since their last update, which could be a long time ago. The software is highly configurable and features can be turned on and off: so called "feature toggles." Release cycles are very tight here, in fact they are not on a shedule: when a feature is complete the software is deployed to the relevant customer. The team only last year moved from Visual Source Safe to Team Foundation Server. The problem is they still use TFS as if it were VSS and enforce Checkout locks on a single code branch. Whenever a bug fix gets put out into the field (even for a single customer) they simply build whatever is in TFS, test the bug was fixed and deploy to the customer! (Myself coming from a pharma and medical devices software background this is unbeliveable!). The result is that half baked dev code gets put into production without being even tested. Bugs are always slipping into release builds, but often a customer who just got a build will not see these bugs if they don't use the feature the bug is in. The director knows this is a problem as the company is starting to grow all of a sudden with some big clients coming on board and more smaller ones. I have been asked to look at source control options in order to eliminate deploying of buggy or unfinished code but to not sacrifice the somewhat asyncronous nature of the teams releases. I have used VSS, TFS, SVN and Bazaar in my career, but TFS is where most of my experience has been. Previously most teams I have worked with use a two or three branch solution of Dev-Test-Prod, where for a month developers work directly in Dev and then changes are merged to Test then Prod, or promoted "when its done" rather than on a fixed cycle. Automated builds were used, using either Cruise Control or Team Build. In my previous job Bazaar was used sitting on top of SVN: devs worked in their own small feature branches then pushed their changes to SVN (which was tied into TeamCity). This was nice in that it was easy to isolate changes and share them with other peoples branches. With both of these models there was a central dev and prod (and sometimes test) branch through which code was pushed (and labels were used to mark builds in prod from which releases were made...and these were made into branches for bug fixes to releases and merged back to dev). This doesn't really suit the way of working here, however: there is no order to when various features will be released, they get pushed when they are complete. With this requirement the "continuous integration" approach as I see it breaks down. To get a new feature out with continuous integration it has to be pushed via dev-test-prod and that will capture any unfinished work in dev. I am thinking that to overcome this we should go down a heavily feature branched model with NO dev-test-prod branches, rather the source should exist as a series of feature branches which when development work is complete are locked, tested, fixed, locked, tested and then released. Other feature branches can grab changes from other branches when they need/want, so eventually all changes get absorbed into everyone elses. This fits very much down a pure Bazaar model from what I experienced at my last job. As flexible as this sounds it just seems odd to not have a dev trunk or prod branch somewhere, and I am worried about branches forking never to re-integrate, or small late changes made that never get pulled across to other branches and developers complaining about merge disasters... What are peoples thoughts on this? A second final question: I am somewhat confused about the exact definition of distributed source control: some people seem to suggest it is about just not having a central repository like TFS or SVN, some say it is about being disconnected (SVN is 90% disconnected and TFS has a perfectly functional offline mode) and others say it is about Feature Branching and ease of merging between branches with no parent-child relationship (TFS also has baseless merging!). Perhaps this is a second question!

    Read the article

  • Javascript SDK on Facebook

    - by Eamonn Fox
    I am trying to use the Javascript SDK for Facebook but I keep getting the message : Given URL is not permitted by the application configuration.: One or more of the given URLs is not allowed by the App's settings. It must match the Website URL or Canvas URL, or the domain must be a subdomain of one of the App's domains but I have copied and pasted my canvas URL from the settings section. Anyone any ideas whats up?

    Read the article

  • Why should ViewModel route actions to Controller when using the MVCVM pattern?

    - by Lea Hayes
    When reading examples across the Internet (including the MSDN reference) I have found that code examples are all doing the following type of thing: public class FooViewModel : BaseViewModel { public FooViewModel(FooController controller) { Controller = controller; } protected FooController Controller { get; private set; } public void PerformSuperAction() { // This just routes action to controller... Controller.SuperAction(); } ... } and then for the view: public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.PerformSuperAction(); } } Why do we not just do the following? public class FooView : BaseView { ... private void OnSuperButtonClicked() { ViewModel.Controller.SuperAction(); // or, even just use a shortcut property: Controller.SuperAction(); } }

    Read the article

  • Help me select a "Simpler" target to create a new language: .NET, LLVM, Go, Own VM

    - by mamcx
    Lets define "Simple". This is my first language. I have no previous experience I will not dedicate +4 years to learn it properly. I'm a professional software [developer], but as an amateur in this area, I want instant gratification. If the idea shows a future, I could rewrite it. I don't want to do everything from scratch. In fact, if there exists a way to get GO (for example), change its syntax, add some sugar, give some extra functions and leave intact everything else, that would be perfect! From the example of coffescript/scala I think is better to build on top of some rich runtime like .NET/GO so I don't need to rewrite everything. HOWEVER, if is better other way, no problem for the first try! I want it in a week. I need it in a week so it will really take a month. Then it truly takes 3 months. But I don't want to put more that 3 months on this. I could reduce the scope of my language, but I hope the tools will help me a lot... I want to build a new language. Similar to python, but typed. I wonder what to build it on top of. I like the idea of building on top of GO. To get their sane (IMHO) OO paradigm (I plan to do the same, using interfaces, not inheritance), get goroutines and some other stuff. In my naive thinking I imagine that spit another language could help me to debug it more easily. However, look like everyone is building on top of something like .NET (don't like Java), LLVM or make it own VM. I read http://createyourproglang.com/ (great!) and the part of the VM look "easy" to me. So, what I need is the proper criteria and question I need to know in advance to have a fair shot at make this.

    Read the article

  • How do you manage the testing of your Android software on physical devices?

    - by Philip Regan
    I'm in charge of managing mobile application development at my company, and I am currently building a mobile device "library" for testing. Essentially, we want to have a representative device in-house for each of the OSes we are developing for, currently iOS (iPhone-only), Blackberry, and Android. Simulators only go so far, but I'm placing into the process a step to test software on the devices themselves. The problem we're finding is with Android. I don't think any of us here ever really understood just how fragmented the whole platform is until we started looking at devices to acquire. We are going to wait until v2.3 of Android is released, but which products to choose? Do we go by the most popular by market share? Do we get a small range of products by specs from least to most powerful overall? We're trying to avoid having to manage a dozen different devices to test each app, if not because of cost if only for the repeated time sink. How do you manage the testing of your Android software on physical devices?

    Read the article

  • What is the need for 'discoverability' in a REST API when the clients are not advanced enough to make use of it anyway?

    - by aditya menon
    The various talks I have watched and tutorials I scanned on REST seem to stress something called 'discoverability'. To my limited understanding, the term seems to mean that a client should be able to go to http://URL - and automatically get a list of things it can do. What I am having trouble understanding - is that 'software clients' are not human beings. They are just programs that do not have the intuitive knowledge to understand what exactly to do with the links provided. Only people can go to a website and make sense of the text and links presented and act on it. So what is the point of discoverability, when the client code that accesses such discoverable URLs cannot actually do anything with it, unless the human developer of the client actually experiments with the resources presented? This looks like the exact same thing as defining the set of available functions in a Documentation manual, just from a different direction and actually involving more work for the developer. Why is this second approach of pre-defining what can be done in a document external to the actual REST resources, considered inferior?

    Read the article

  • Iphone/Android app – chatroom development – what framework & hosting needs?

    - by MikaelW
    I have some experience regarding IPhone and Android development but I am now struggling to solve a new class of problem: apps that involve a client/server chatroom feature. That is, an app when people can exchange text over the internet, and without having the app to constantly “pull” content from the server. So that problem can’t be solved with a normal php/mysql website, there must be some kind of application running on a server that is able to send message from the server to the phone, rather than having the phone to check for new messages every 10 seconds… So I’m looking for ways to solve the different problems here: What framework should I use on the two sides (phone / server)? It should be some kind of library that doesn’t prevent me to write paid apps. It should also be possible to have the same server for the Iphone and android version of the app. What server / hosting solution do I need with what sort of features, I just have no experience regarding server application that can handle and initiate multiple connections and are hosted on hardware that is always online I tried to find resources online but couldn’t so far, either the libraries had the wrong kind of license/language or I just didn’t understand… Sometimes there were nice tutorial but for different needs such as peer2peer chat over local network… Same with the server and the hosting problem, not sure where to start really, I’m calling for help and I promise I will complete this page with notes about the experience I will get :-) Obviously the ideal would be to find a tutorial I missed that include client code, server code and a free scalable server… That being said, If I see something as good, it probably means that I have eaten the wrong kind of mushroom again… So, failing that, any pointer which might help me toward that quest, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Mikael

    Read the article

  • Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

    - by Guillaume
    I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

    Read the article

  • How do you avoid being a "blowhard"?

    - by Conrad Frix
    When I'm passionate about something (particularly programming) I find it really easy come off like the guy Peter G. was talking about in Dealing with the “programming blowhard”. So what techniques do you use to 1) Identify when you are indeed a blowhard? 2) Communicate something "important" without seeming self important? Specific example help like When giving criticism ask "have you considered what happens when XXX changes" instead of "never take dependencies on implementation details" When giving advice "showing with code is better than talking" or use a reference.

    Read the article

  • How do I go about hosting facebook apps that are picking speed?

    - by Karthik
    My situation is this. I coded in php and built a facebook app. After 3 days it has 13,000 users. I have my own server at hostmonster. It is a regular plan costing me about $70 per year. It has unlimited bandwidth. I did not anticipate hosting apps or that it could pick up so many users. Already 1 Gb of data was transferred in the last few days. I am planning to build a few more apps(around 10 - 20) and reach atleast a million users in total. Should I continue hosting on the same server or move to a VPS? I am a student and I don't have too much of a disposable income. So I want to move only if it is necessary. Right now it shows 1 Gb/infinity in data transfer. Any help/suggestions highly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • how to improve design ability

    - by Cong Hui
    I recently went on a couple of interviews and all of them asked a one or two design questions, like how you would design a chess, monopoly, and so on. I didn't do good on those since I am a college student and lack of the experience of implementing big and complex systems. I figure the only way to improve my design capability is to read lots of others' code and try to implement myself. Therefore, for those companies that ask these questions, what are their real goals in this? I figure most of college grads start off working in a team guided by a senior leader in their first jobs. They might not have lots of design experience fresh out of colleges. Anyone could give pointers about how to practice those skills? Thank you very much

    Read the article

  • unit/integration testing web service proxy client

    - by cori
    I'm rewriting a PHP client/proxy library that provides an interface to a SOAP-based .Net webservice, and in the process I want to add some unit and integration tests so future modifications are less risky. The work the library I'm working on performs is to marshall the calls to the web service and do a little reorganizing of the responses to present a slightly more -object-oriented interface to the underlying service. Since this library is little else than a thin layer on top of web service calls, my basic assumption is that I'll really be writing integration tests more than unit tests - for example, I don't see any reason to mock away the web service - the work that's performed by the code I'm working on is very light; it's almost passing the response from the service right back to its consumer. Most of the calls are basic CRUD operations: CreateRole(), CreateUser(), DeleteUser(), FindUser(), &ct. I'll be starting from a known database state - the system I'm using for these tests is isolated for testing purposes, so the results will be more or less predictable. My question is this: is it natural to use web service calls to confirm the results of operations within the tests and to reset the state of the application within the scope of each test? Here's an example: One test might be createUserReturnsValidUserId() and might go like this: public function createUserReturnsValidUserId() { // we're assuming a global connection to the service $newUserId = $client->CreateUser("user1"); assertNotNull($newUserId); assertNotNull($client->FindUser($newUserId); $client->deleteUser($newUserId); } So I'm creating a user, making sure I get an ID back and that it represents a user in the system, and then cleaning up after myself (so that later tests don't rely on the success or failure of this test w/r/t the number of users in the system, for example). However this still seems pretty fragile - lots of dependencies and opportunities for tests to fail and effect the results of later tests, which I definitely want to avoid. Am I missing some options of ways to decouple these tests from the system under test, or is this really the best I can do? I think this is a fairly general unit/integration testing question, but if it matters I'm using PHPUnit for the testing framework.

    Read the article

  • Segmentation fault 11 in MacOS X- C++ [migrated]

    - by Marcos Cesar Vargas Magana
    all. I have a "segmentation fault 11" error when I run the following code. The code actually compiles but I get the error at run time. //** Terror.h ** #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <map> using std::map; using std::pair; using std::string; template<typename Tsize> class Terror { public: //Inserts a message in the map. static Tsize insertMessage(const string& message) { mErrorMessages.insert( pair<Tsize, string>(mErrorMessages.size()+1, message) ); return mErrorMessages.size(); } private: static map<Tsize, string> mErrorMessages; } template<typename Tsize> map<Tsize,string> Terror<Tsize>::mErrorMessages; //** error.h ** #include <iostream> #include "Terror.h" typedef unsigned short errorType; typedef Terror<errorType> error; errorType memoryAllocationError=error::insertMessage("ERROR: out of memory."); //** main.cpp ** #include <iostream> #include "error.h" using namespace std; int main() { try { throw error(memoryAllocationError); } catch(error& err) { } } I have kind of debugging the code and the error happens when the message is being inserted in the static map member. An observation is that if I put the line: errorType memoryAllocationError=error::insertMessage("ERROR: out of memory."); inside the "main()" function instead of at global scope, then everything works fine. But I would like to extend the error messages at global scope, not at local scope. The map is defined static so that all instances of "error" share the same error codes and messages. Do you know how can I get this or something similar. Thank you very much.

    Read the article

  • Should mock objects for tests be created at a high or low level

    - by Danack
    When creating unit tests for those other objects, what is the best way to create mock objects that provide data to other objects. Should they be created at a 'high level' and intercept the calls as soon as possible, or should they be done at a 'low level' and so make as much as the real code still be called? e.g. I'm writing a test for some code that requires a NoteMapper object that allows Notes to be loaded from the DB. class NoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { // Create an SQL query from $sqlQueryFactory // Run that SQL // if null // return null // else // return new Note($dataFromSQLQuery) } } I could either mock this object at a high level by creating a mock NoteMapper object, so that there are no calls to the SQL at all e.g. class MockNoteMapper { function getNote($sqlQueryFactory, $noteID) { //$mockData = {'Test Note title', "Test note text" } // return new Note($mockData); } } Or I could do it at a very low level, by creating a MockSQLQueryFactory that instead of actually querying the database just provides mock data back, and passing that to the current NoteMapper object. It seems that creating mocks at a high level would be easier in the short term, but that in the long term doing it at a low level would be more powerful and possibly allow more automation of tests e.g. by recording data in an out of a DB and then replaying that data for tests. Is there a recommended way of creating mocks? Are there any hard and fast rules about which are better, or should they both be used where appropriate?

    Read the article

  • Do we need use case levels or not?

    - by Gabriel Šcerbák
    I guess no one would argue for decomposing use cases, that is just wrong. However sometimes it is necessary to specify use cases, which are on lower, more technical level, like for example authetication and authorization, which give the actor value, but are further from his business needs. Cockburn argues for levels when needed and explains how to move use cases from/to different levels and how to determine the right level. On the other hand, e.g. Bittner argues against use case levels, although he uses subflows and at the end of his book mentions, that at least two levels areneeded most of the time. My questionis, do you find use case levels necessary, helpful or unwanted? What are the reasons? Am I misssing some important arguments?

    Read the article

  • Recent programming language for AI?

    - by Eduard Florinescu
    For a few decades the programming language of choice for AI was either Prolog or LISP, and a few more others that are not so well known. Most of them were designed before the 70's. Changes happens a lot on many other domains specific languages, but in the AI domain it hadn't surfaced so much as in the web specific languages or scripting etc. Are there recent programming languages that were intended to change the game in the AI and learn from the insufficiencies of former languages?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215  | Next Page >