Search Results

Search found 14074 results on 563 pages for 'programmers'.

Page 245/563 | < Previous Page | 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252  | Next Page >

  • What's the best version control/QA workflow for a legacy system?

    - by John Cromartie
    I am struggling to find a good balance with our development and testing process. We use Git right now, and I am convinced that ReinH's Git Workflow For Agile Teams is not just great for capital-A Agile, but for pretty much any team on DVCS. That's what I've tried to implement but it's just not catching. We have a large legacy system with a complex environment, hundreds of outstanding and undiscovered defects, and no real good way to set up a test environment with realistic data. It's also hard to release updates without disrupting users. Most of all, it's hard to do thorough QA with this process... and we need thorough testing with this legacy system. I feel like we can't really pull off anything as slick as the Git workflow outlined in the link. What's the way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Refactoring and Open / Closed principle

    - by Giorgio
    I have recently being reading a web site about clean code development (I do not put a link here because it is not in English). One of the principles advertised by this site is the Open Closed Principle: each software component should be open for extension and closed for modification. E.g., when we have implemented and tested a class, we should only modify it to fix bugs or to add new functionality (e.g. new methods that do not influence the existing ones). The existing functionality and implementation should not be changed. I normally apply this principle by defining an interface I and a corresponding implementation class A. When class A has become stable (implemented and tested), I normally do not modify it too much (possibly, not at all), i.e. If new requirements arrive (e.g. performance, or a totally new implementation of the interface) that require big changes to the code, I write a new implementation B, and keep using A as long as B is not mature. When B is mature, all that is needed is to change how I is instantiated. If the new requirements suggest a change to the interface as well, I define a new interface I' and a new implementation A'. So I, A are frozen and remain the implementation for the production system as long as I' and A' are not stable enough to replace them. So, in view of these observation, I was a bit surprised that the web page then suggested the use of complex refactorings, "... because it is not possible to write code directly in its final form." Isn't there a contradiction / conflict between enforcing the Open / Closed Principle and suggesting the use of complex refactorings as a best practice? Or the idea here is that one can use complex refactorings during the development of a class A, but when that class has been tested successfully it should be frozen?

    Read the article

  • Finding links among many written and spoken thoughts

    - by Peter Fren
    So... I am using a digital voice recorder to record anything I see important, ranging from business to private, from rants to new business ideas. Every finalized idea is one wma-file. I wrote a program to sort the wma-files into folders. From time to time I listen to the wma-files, convert them to text(manually) and insert them into a mindmap with mindmanager, which I sort hierarchically by area and type in turn. This works very well, no idea is being lost, when I am out of ideas for a special topic, I listen to what I said and can get started again. What could a search system look like that finds links between thoughts(written in the mindmap and in the wma files) or in general gives me good search results even when the keyword I searched for is not present but a synonym of it or related topic(for instance flower should output entries containing orchid aswell, even if they contain orchid but not the very keyword flower). I prefer something ready-made but small adjustments to a given system are fine aswell. How would you approach this task?

    Read the article

  • What is the precise definition of programming paradigm?

    - by Kazark
    Wikipedia defines programming paradigm thus: a fundamental style of computer programming which is echoed in the descriptive text of the paradigms tag on this site. I find this a disappointing definition. Anyone who knows the words programming and paradigm could do about that well without knowing anything else about it. There are many styles of computer programming at many level of abstraction; within any given programming paradigm, multiple styles are possible. For example, Bob Martin says in Clean Code (13), Consider this book a description of the Object Mentor School of Clean Code. The techniques and teachings within are the way that we practice our art. We are willing to claim that if you follow these teachings, you will enjoy the benefits that we have enjoyed, and you will learn to write code that is clean and professional. But don't make the mistake of thinking that we are somehow "right" in any absolute sense. Thus Bob Martin is not claiming to have the correct style of Object-Oriented programming, even though he, if anyone, might have some claim to doing so. But even within his school of programming, we might have different styles of formatting the code (K&R, etc). There are many styles of programming at many levels. So how can we define programming paradigm rigorously, to distinguish it from other categories of programming styles? Fundamental is somewhat helpful, but not specific. How can we define the phrase in a way that will communicate more than the separate meanings of each of the two words—in other words, how can we define it in a way that will provide additional meaning for someone who speaks English but isn't familiar with a variety of paradigms?

    Read the article

  • Relationship DAO, Servlet, JSP and POJO

    - by John Hendrik
    I want to implement a JSP, POJO, DAO and Servlet in my J2EE program. However, I don't fully understand how the relationship between these elements should be. Is the following (MVC) setup the right way to do it? Main class creates servlet(controller) Servlet has a DAO defined in its class DAO has a POJO defined in its class Servlet communicates with the view (JSP page) Please give your feedback.

    Read the article

  • Should I modify an entity with many parameters or with the entity itself?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    We have a SOA-based system. The service methods are like: UpdateEntity(Entity entity) For small entities, it's all fine. However, when entities get bigger and bigger, to update one property we should follow this pattern in UI: Get parameters from UI (user) Create an instance of the Entity, using those parameters Get the entity from service Write code to fill the unchanged properties Give the result entity to the service Another option that I've experienced in previous experiences is to create semantic update methods for each update scenario. In other words instead of having one global all-encompasing update method, we had many ad-hoc parametric methods. For example, for the User entity, instead of having UpdateUser (User user) method, we had these methods: ChangeUserPassword(int userId, string newPassword) AddEmailToUserAccount(int userId, string email) ChangeProfilePicture(int userId, Image image) ... Now, I don't know which method is truly better, and for each approach, we encounter problems. I mean, I'm going to design the infrastructure for a new system, and I don't have enough reasons to pick any of these approaches. I couldn't find good resources on the Internet, because of the lack of keywords I could provide. What approach is better? What pitfalls each has? What benefits can we get from each one?

    Read the article

  • Hints to properly design UML class diagram

    - by mic4ael
    Here is the problem. I have just started learning UML and that is why I would like to ask for a few cues from experienced users how I could improve my diagram because I do know it lacks a lot of details, it has mistakes for sure etc. Renovation company hires workers. Each employee has some kind of profession, which is required to work on a particular position. Workers work in groups consisting of at most 15 members - so called production units, which specializes in a specified kind of work. Each production unit is managed by a foreman. Every worker in order to be able to perform job tasks needs proper accessories. There are two kind of tools - light and heavy. To use heavy tools, a worker must have proper privileges. A worker can have at most 3 light tools taken from the warehouse.

    Read the article

  • Using automated bdd-gui-tests to keep user-documentation-screenshots up do date?

    - by k3b
    Are there developpers out there, who (ab)use the CaptureScreenshot() function of their automated gui-tests to also create uptodate-screenshots for the userdocumentation? Background: Whithin the lifetime of an application, its gui-elements are constantly changing. It makes a lot of work to keep the userdocumentation uptodate, especially if the example data in the pictures should match the textual description. If you already have automated bdd-gui-tests why not let them take screenshots at certain points? I am currently playing with webapps in dotnet+specflow+selenium, but this topic also applies to other bdd-engines (JRuby-Cucumber, mspec, rspec, ...) and gui-test-Frameworks (WaitN, WaitR, MsWhite, ....) Any experience, thoughts or url-links to this topic would be helpfull. How is the cost/benefit relation? Is it worth the efford? What are the Drawbacks? See also: Is it practical to retroactively write specifications documenting a system via automated acceptance tests?

    Read the article

  • Updating large icon in iTunes Connect

    - by Shaggy Frog
    Just wanted to see if I understand properly how/when one can change the "Large icon" for their iOS app in iTunes Connect. Questions are in bold below. To start, first the facts (as I gather) from version 6.6 of the iTC guide (March 2, 2011): The Large Icon is a "locked" piece of version information "You will only be permitted to edit Locked version information when your app is in an Editable state" The "Editable" states are: Prepare For Upload Waiting For Upload Waiting For Review Waiting For Export Compliance Upload Received Rejected Developer Rejected Invalid Binary Missing Screenshot Am I missing anything up until this point? If not, then am I correct to say that the only time I can change an app's Large Icon is when I update the application? Here's a more specific use case: My app is currently on sale, version 2.0 I have version 2.1 ready, and I want the update to coincide with a sale, so I also put a "SALE" banner on top of my large icon (what most devs are doing) I have to upload this "SALE" Large Icon when I upload the binary. If I wait until it's been reviewed, it's too late, and I'll have developer-reject the binary so I can fix it. Is this correct? Say I want the sale to last a week. So at the end of that week, I'll want to switch my Large Icon back to the pre-"SALE" version. Will I necessarily have to upload a new binary at that time? (Also posted on the Developer Forums, but it's getting no love there...)

    Read the article

  • How much effort should you put into a junior developer?

    - by Crazy Eddie
    At what point should one give up? I've tried helping them out by having them shadow me. We agree to break a minute, and then they go missing in action for a while...then just go back to their desk. Even when I know they've done this, part of me feels like I shouldn't have to go get them but that they should be showing interest in learning. Frankly, it's a bunch of time I don't have explaining things as I go when I could just do it. Am I expecting too much to expect that if they want to learn they'll make sure I know they're ready and willing? They go to meetings that they where not told they had to, good, but then sit in the corner and sleep...bad. I don't even know what to do with that. Sometimes I give them something small to do and they do it great, so I give them something just a touch harder and they totally fail, hard. Check in things without testing them. Part of me thinks that maybe I should be spending more time with them but at the same time I don't see a lot of interest and I really, honestly don't have time teaching the same things over and over. Sometimes I get asked questions that are really, really easy to answer if you just do a little bit of your own work trying to find out. Other times I'm not asked anything. I'm sure I could be doing better but honestly...I don't really want to anymore.

    Read the article

  • Erlang web frameworks survey

    - by Zachary K
    (Inspired by similar question on Haskel) There are several web frameworks for Erlang like Nitrogen, Chicago Boss, and Zotonic, and a few more. In what aspects do they differ from each other? For example: features (e.g. server only, or also client scripting, easy support for different kinds of database) maturity (e.g. stability, documentation quality) scalability (e.g. performance, handy abstraction) main targets Also, what are examples of real-world sites / web apps using these frameworks?

    Read the article

  • iOS: Versioned static frameworks vs Git Submodules and included code

    - by drekka
    For the last couple of years I've been building static frameworks of common APIs for my iOS projects. I can build a universal binary containing all the architectures (i386, armv6, armv7) and wrap it up in a .framework directory structure. I then stored this in a directory based on the version of the framework. For example ..../myAPI/v0.1.0/myAPI.framework Once I have this framework I can then easily add it to a project and if I want to advance the version, merely change the framework search paths to the later version. This works, but the approach is very similar to what I would use in the Java world. Recently I've been reading about using Git submodules and static framework sub projects in XCode 4. Im wondering if my currently approach is something that I should consider retiring and what the pros/cons are of the new approach. I'm weary of just including code because I've already had issues in a work project which had (effectively) multiple versions of a third party API. Any opinions?

    Read the article

  • What is a good way to share internal helpers?

    - by toplel32
    All my projects share the same base library that I have build up over quite some time. It contains utilities and static helper classes to assist them where .NET doesn't exactly offer what I want. Originally all the helpers were written mainly to serve an internal purpose and it has to stay that way, but sometimes they prove very useful to other assemblies. Now making them public in a reliable way is more complicated than most would think, for example all methods that assume nullable types must now contain argument checking while not charging internal utilities with the price of doing so. The price might be negligible, but it is far from right. While refactoring, I have revised this case multiple times and I've come up with the following solutions so far: Have an internal and public class for each helper The internal class contains the actual code while the public class serves as an access point which does argument checking. Cons: The internal class requires a prefix to avoid ambiguity (the best presentation should be reserved for public types) It isn't possible to discriminate methods that don't need argument checking   Have one class that contains both internal and public members (as conventionally implemented in .NET framework). At first, this might sound like the best possible solution, but it has the same first unpleasant con as solution 1. Cons: Internal methods require a prefix to avoid ambiguity   Have an internal class which is implemented by the public class that overrides any members that require argument checking. Cons: Is non-static, atleast one instantiation is required. This doesn't really fit into the helper class idea, since it generally consists of independent fragments of code, it should not require instantiation. Non-static methods are also slower by a negligible degree, which doesn't really justify this option either. There is one general and unavoidable consequence, alot of maintenance is necessary because every internal member will require a public counterpart. A note on solution 1: The first consequence can be avoided by putting both classes in different namespaces, for example you can have the real helper in the root namespace and the public helper in a namespace called "Helpers".

    Read the article

  • Searching for a key in a multi dimensional array and adding it to another array [migrated]

    - by Moha
    Let's say I have two multi dimensional arrays: array1 ( stuff1 = array ( data = 'abc' ) stuff2 = array ( something = '123' data = 'def' ) stuff3 = array ( stuff4 = array ( data = 'ghi' ) ) ) array2 ( stuff1 = array ( ) stuff3 = array ( anything = '456' ) ) What I want is to search the key 'data' in array1 and then insert the key and value to array2 regardless of the depth. So wherever key 'data' exists in array1 it gets added to array2 with the exact depth (and key names) as in array1 AND without modifying any other keys. How can I do this recursively?

    Read the article

  • Where can I find programming work online ?

    - by explorest
    I have setup an ideal, quiet, non-interrupting environment at home. I am extremely productive here. I dont want to leave my home, not my room, not even my couch. How/where do I find work online so that I don't have to travel to it? Kindly post about your own personal experiences. Have you done it full time from home? Where and how? I am outside United States in a third world country so a lower pay is not an issue. The issue is the work-enviroment.

    Read the article

  • How to share code as open source?

    - by Ethel Evans
    I have a little program that I wrote for a local group to handle a somewhat complicated scheduling issue for scheduling multiple meetings in multiple locations that change weekly according to certain criteria. It's a niche need, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other groups that could use software like this. In fact, we've had requests from others for directions on starting a group like this, and if their groups get as big, they might also want special software to help with scheduling. I plan to continue developing the program and eventually make it an online web app, but a very simple alpha version is completed as a console app. I'd like to make it available as open source, but I have no idea what kind of process I should go through first. Right now, all I have is Java code, not even unit-tested thoroughly. I haven't shown the code to anyone else. There is no documentation. I don't know where I would put the code so others could access it. I don't know anything about licensing it. I don't know what kind of support people will expect from me if I release it as open source. I have no idea what else I should worry about. Can someone outline for me (or post an article(s) that outlines) the process of taking open source software from "coded" to "completed / available"? I really don't want to embarrass myself by doing things weirdly.

    Read the article

  • What do you do if you reach a design dead-end in evolutionary methods like Agile or XP?

    - by Dipan Mehta
    As I was reading Martin Fowler's famous blog post Is Design Dead?, one of the striking impressions I got is that given the fact that in Agile Methodology and Extreme Programming, the design as well as programming is evolutionary, there are always points where things need to get refactored. It may be possible that when a programmer's level is good, and they understand design implications and don't make critical mistakes, the code continues to evolve. However, in a normal context, what is the ground reality in this context? In a normal day given some significant development goes into product, and when critical change occurs in requirement isn't it a constraint that how much ever we wish, fundamental design aspects cannot be modified? (without throwing away major part of the code). Is it not quite likely that one reaches dead-end on any further possible improvement on design and requirements? I am not advocating any non-Agile practice here, but I want to know from people who practice agile or iterative or evolutionary development methods, as for their real experiences. Have you ever reached such dead-ends? How have you managed to avoid it or escaped it? Or are there measures to ensure that design remains clean and flexible as it evolves?

    Read the article

  • Do you need to know Java before trying Scala

    - by gizgok
    I'm interested in learning Scala. I've been reading a lot about it, but a lot of people value it because it has an actor model which is better for concurrency, it handles xml in a much better way, solves the problem of first class functions. My question is do you need to know Java to understand/appreciate the way things work in Scala? Is it better to first take a stab at Java and then try Scala or you can start Scala with absolutely no java backround?

    Read the article

  • Play or Lift: which one is more explicit?

    - by Andrea
    I am going to investigate web development with Scala, and the choice is between learning Lift or Play: probably I will not have enough time to try both, at least at first. Now, many comparisons between the two are available on the internet, but I would like to know how do they compare with respect to being explicit and involving less magic. Let me explain what I mean by example. I have used, to various degrees, CakePHP, symfony2, Django and Grails. I feel a very clear distinction between Django and symfony2, which are very explicit about what you are doing, and Grails and CakePHP, which try to do their best to guess what you are trying to achieve and often feel "magical". Let me give some examples comparing Django and Grails. In Django, views are functions that take a request as input and return a response. You can instantiate explicitly an instance of HttpResponse and populate its body with a string, or you can use shortcut functions to leverage the template system. In any case the return value from your view always has the same type. In contrast, the render method from Grails is highly polymorphic. You can throw a context at it and it will try to render a template which is found by convention using that context. Or you can pass it a pair of a template path and a context and that will work too. Or a string. Or XML. Grails tries hard to make sense of whatever you return from your controller. In the Django ORM, each model class has a static attribute representing the manager for that class. That manager exposes a fluent interface to build querysets. In Grails, you can have a similar functionality by composing detached criteria. Still, the most common way to query objects seems to be the use of runtime-generated methods like FindUserByEmailNotNull or FindPostByDateGreaterThan. I will not go further, but my point is that in Django-like frameworks you have control over the whole flow of the request/response process, while in Grails-like ones I feel I only have to feel the blanks and the framework will manage the rest of the flow for me. This is not to criticize Grails or CakePHP; which type you prefer is mainly a matter of preference. In fact, I happen to like some aspects of Grails, but I feel more comfortable with a framework which does less for me. Back to the point of the question: which one among Play and Lift is more explicit about what you do and which one tries to simplify more what you have to do with a layer of "magic"?

    Read the article

  • Given a project and working with 1 other person - never worked with someone before

    - by Celeritas
    I'm taking a class where I work with a partner to implement the link layer of the OSI model. I've worked programmed with a partner once before and it went bad. Is the goal to divide the work up and decides who does what or should one person code and the other person reviews and switch roles after a while? Any tips are much appreciated. Literally I know nothing about working with a partner to program so even if it's basic please tell me.

    Read the article

  • Popular programming books which have been translated into Russian

    - by arikfr
    I'm looking for recommendations of popular programming books that have been translated into Russian. I'm talking about books like: Test-Driven Development by Example by Kent Beck Code Complete The Pragmatic Programmer And other books like them. Also, recommendations for books in Russian by other authors but about similar topics (TDD, BDD, general programming methodologies) will be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • C# inherit from a class in a different DLL

    - by Onno
    I need to make an application that needs to be highly modular and that can easily be expanded with new functionality. I've thought up a design where I have a main window and a list of actions that are implemented using a strategy pattern. I'd like to implement the base classes/interfaces in a DLL and have the option of loading actions from DLL's which are loaded dynamically when the application starts. This way the main window can initiate actions without having to recompile or redistribute a new version. I just have to (re)distribute new DLL's which I can update dynamically at runtime. This should enable very easy modular updating from a central online source. The 'action' DLL's all inherit their structure from the code defined in the the DLL which defines the main strategy pattern structure and it's abstract factory. I'd like to know if C# /.Net will allow such a construction. I'd also like to know whether this construction has any major problems in terms of design.

    Read the article

  • Software monetization that is not evil

    - by t0x1n
    I have a free open-source project with around 800K downloads to date. I've been contacted by some monetization companies from time to time and turned them down, since I didn't want toolbar malware associated with my software. I was wondering however, is there a non-evil way to monetize software ? Here are the options as I know them: Add a donation button. I don't feel comfortable with that as I really don't need "donations" - I'm paid quite well. Donating users may feel entitled to support etc. (see the second to last bullet) Add ads inside your application. In the web that may be acceptable, but in a desktop program it looks incredibly lame. Charge a small amount for each download. This model works well in the mobile world, but I suspect no one will go for it on the desktop. It doesn't mix well with open source, though I suppose I could charge only for the binaries (most users won't go to the hassle of compiling the sources). People may expect support etc. after having explicitly paid (see next bullet). Make money off a service / community / support associated with the program. This is one route I definitely don't want to take, I don't want any sort of hassle beyond coding. I assure you, the program is top notch (albeit simple) and I'm not aware of any bugs as of yet (there are support forums and blog comments where users may report them). It is also very simple, documented, and discoverable so I do think I have a case for supplying it "as is". Add affiliate suggestions to your installer. If you use a monetization company, you lose control over what they propose. Unless you can establish some sort of strong trust with the company to supply quality suggestions (I sincerely doubt it), I can't have that. Choosing your own affiliate (e.g. directly suggesting Google Toolbar) is possibly the only viable solution to my mind. Problem is, where do I find a solid affiliate that could actually give value to the user rather than infect his computer with crapware? I thought maybe Babylon (not the toolbar of course, I hate toolbars)?

    Read the article

  • Should data structures be integrated into the language (as in Python) or be provided in the standard library (as in Java)?

    - by Anto
    In Python, and most likely many other programming languages, common data structures can be found as an integrated part of the core language with their own dedicated syntax. If we put LISP's integrated list syntax aside, I can't think of any other languages that I know which provides some kind of data structure above the array as an integrated part of their syntax, though all of them (but C, I guess) seem to provide them in the standard library. From a language design perspective, what are your opinions on having a specific syntax for data structures in the core language? Is it a good idea, and does the purpose of the language (etc.) change how good this could be of a choice? Edit: I'm sorry for (apparently) causing some confusion about which data structures I mean. I talk about the basic and commonly used ones, but still not the most basic ones. This excludes trees (too complex, uncommon), stacks (too seldom used), arrays (too simple) but includes e.g. sets, lists and hashmaps.

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?

    - by Puckl
    In my program design, I often come to the point where I have to pass object instances through several classes. For example, if I have a controller that loads an audio file, and then passes it to a player, and the player passes it to the playerRunnable, which passes it again somewhere else etc. It looks kind of bad, but I don´t know how to avoid it. Or is it OK to do this? EDIT: Maybe the player example is not the best because I could load the file later, but in other cases that does not work.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252  | Next Page >