Search Results

Search found 893 results on 36 pages for 'convention over configura'.

Page 3/36 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Naming convention in Objective C /C , start with "_"?

    - by Tattat
    Something I see ppl define the variable like this: b2World *_world; b2Body *_body; CCSprite *_ball; instead of b2World *world; b2Body *body; CCSprite *ball; I familiar with the second one, but not the first one. So, I checked the Wikipedia about naming convention: Names beginning with double underscore or an underscore and a capital letter are reserved for implementation (compiler, standard library) and should not be used (e.g. __reserved or _Reserved). So, is that any special meaning which is start with "_"? The wiki page.

    Read the article

  • Objective-C convention to prevent "local declaration hides instance variable" warning

    - by Nippysaurus
    Is there a common convention for dealing with these scenarios? The following code is what I am using .. -(id) initWithVariableName: (NSString*)variableName withComparisonValue:(NSString*)comparisonValue { self.mustExist = NO; self.reverseCondition = NO; self.regularExpression = NO; self.variableName = variableName; self.comparisonValue = comparisonValue; return self; } But I am getting "Local declaration of 'variableName' hides instance variable" and the same for "comparisonValue". The function signature seems logical to me, but surely there must be a more "acceptable" standard which will still make sense and be accurate but not generate annoying warnings?

    Read the article

  • abstract method signature, inheritance, and "Do" naming convention

    - by T. Webster
    I'm learning about design patterns and in examples of code I've seen a convention where the abstract class declares a method, for example: public abstract class ServiceBase { ... public virtual object GetSomething(); and then protected abstract object DoGetSomething(); My question is on why these two methods exist, since they appear to serve the same purpose. Is this so that the base class GetSomething() method logic cannot be overridden by inherited classes? But then again, the method is marked virtual, so it can be overridden anyway. What is the usefulness here in requiring derived class implementers to implement the abstract method when the virtual method can be called anyway?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2: Data DataAnnotations validation be convention

    - by stacker
    I have a required attribute that used with resources: public class ArticleInput : InputBase { [Required(ErrorMessageResourceType = typeof(ArticleResources), ErrorMessageResourceName = "Body_Validation_Required")] public string Body { get; set; } } I want to specify the resources be convention, like this: public class ArticleInput : InputBase { [Required2] public string Body { get; set; } } Basically, Required2 implements the values based on this data: ErrorMessageResourceType = typeof(ClassNameWithoutInput + Resources); // ArticleResources ErrorMessageResourceName = typeof(PropertyName + "_Validation_Required"); // Body_Validation_Required Is there any way to achieve something like this? maybe I need to implement a new ValidationAttribute.

    Read the article

  • Interface naming convention

    - by Frederick
    This is a subjective thing of course, but I don't see anything positive in prefixing interface names with an 'I'. To me, Thing is practically always more readable than IThing. My question is, why does this convention exist then? Sure, it makes it easier to tell interfaces from other types. But wouldn't that argument extend to retaining the Hungarian notation, which is now widely censured? What's your argument for that awkward 'I'? Or, more importantly, what could be Microsoft's?

    Read the article

  • Naming convention for non-virtual and abstract methods

    - by eagle
    I frequently find myself creating classes which use this form (A): abstract class Animal { public void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass WalkInternal(); // TODO: do something after walking } protected abstract void WalkInternal(); } class Dog : Animal { protected override void WalkInternal() { // TODO: walk with 4 legs } } class Bird : Animal { protected override void WalkInternal() { // TODO: walk with 2 legs } } Rather than this form (B): abstract class Animal { public abstract void Walk(); } class Dog : Animal { public override void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass // TODO: walk with 4 legs // TODO: do something after walking } } class Bird : Animal { public override void Walk() { // TODO: do something before walking // custom logic implemented by each subclass // TODO: walk with 2 legs // TODO: do something after walking } } As you can see, the nice thing about form A is that every time you implement a subclass, you don't need to remember to include the initialization and finalization logic. This is much less error prone than form B. What's a standard convention for naming these methods? I like naming the public method Walk since then I can call Dog.Walk() which looks better than something like Dog.WalkExternal(). However, I don't like my solution of adding the suffix "Internal" for the protected method. I'm looking for a more standardized name. Btw, is there a name for this design pattern?

    Read the article

  • C# naming convention for enum and matching property

    - by Serge - appTranslator
    Hi All, I often find myself implementing a class maintaining some kind of own status property as an enum: I have a Status enum and ONE Status property of Status type. How should I solve this name conflict? public class Car { public enum Status { Off, Starting, Moving }; Status status = Status.Off; public Status Status // <===== Won't compile ===== { get { return status; } set { status = value; DoSomething(); } } } If the Status enum were common to different types, I'd put it outside the class and the problem would be solved. But Status applies to Car only hence it doesn't make sense to declare the enum outside the class. What naming convention do you use in this case? NB: This question was partially debated in comments of an answer of this question. Since it wasn't the main question, it didn't get much visibility. EDIT: Filip Ekberg suggests an IMO excellent workaround for the specific case of 'Status'. Yet I'd be interesting to read about solutions where the name of the enum/property is different, as in Michael Prewecki's answer. EDIT2 (May 2010): My favorite solution is to pluralize the enum type name, as suggested by Chris S. According to MS guidelines, this should be used for flag enums only. But I've come to like it more and more. I now use it for regular enums as well.

    Read the article

  • Primary key/foreign Key naming convention

    - by Jeremy
    In our dev group we have a raging debate regarding the naming convention for Primary and Foreign Keys. There's basically two schools of thought in our group: 1) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called ID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID 2) Primary Table (Employee) Primary Key is called EmployeeID Foreign table (Event) Foreign key is called EmployeeID I prefer not to duplicate the name of the table in any of the columns (So I prefer option 1 above). Conceptually, it is consisted with a lot of the recommended practices in other languages, where you don't use the name of the object in its property names. I think that naming the foreign key EmployeeID (or Employee_ID might be better) tells the reader that it is the ID column of the Employee Table. Some others prefer option 2 where you name the primary key prefixed with the table name so that the column name is the same throughout the database. I see that point, but you now can not visually distinguish a primary key from a foreign key. Also, I think it's redundant to have the table name in the column name, because if you think of the table as an entity and a column as a property or attribute of that entity, you think of it as the ID attribute of the Employee, not the EmployeeID attribute of an employee. I don't go an ask my coworker what his PersonAge or PersonGender is. I ask him what his Age is. So like I said, it's a raging debate and we go on and on and on about it. I'm interested to get some new perspective.

    Read the article

  • jQuery Suspected Naming Convention Problem

    - by donfigga
    Hi all, I'm having a problem with this jQuery function, the portion of the function that renames the id, class and name of the dropdown only works for the first dropdown, subsequent ones do not work, any ideas? I suspect it may have something to do with naming convention as in cat.parent_id but it is required for asp.net mvc model binding. $(document).ready(function () { $("table select").live("change", function () { var id = $(this).attr('id'); if ($(this).attr('classname') != "selected") { var rowIndex = $(this).closest('tr').prevAll().length; $.getJSON("/Category/GetSubCategories/" + $(this).val(), function (data) { if (data.length > 0) { //problematic portion $("#" + id).attr('classname', 'selected'); $("#" + id).attr('name', 'sel' + rowIndex); $("#" + id).attr('id', 'sel' + rowIndex); var position = ($('table').get(0)); var tr = position.insertRow(rowIndex + 1); var td1 = tr.insertCell(-1); var td2 = tr.insertCell(-1); td1.appendChild(document.createTextNode('SubCategory')); var sel = document.createElement("select"); sel.name = 'parent_id'; sel.id = 'parent_id'; sel.setAttribute('class', 'unselected'); td2.appendChild(sel); $('#parent_id').append($("<option></option>").attr("value", "-1").text("-please select item-")); $.each(data, function (GetSubCatergories, Category) { $('#parent_id').append($("<option></option>"). attr("value", Category.category_id). text(Category.name)); }); sel.name = 'cat.parent_id'; sel.id = 'cat.parent_id'; } }); } }); });

    Read the article

  • jquery suspected naving convention problem

    - by donfigga
    Hi all im having provlem with this jquery function, the protion of the function that renames the id, class and name of the dropdown only works for the first dropdown, susequest ones do not work , any ideas, i suspect it may have something to do with naming convention as in cat.parent_id but it is required for asp.net mvc model binding. $(document).ready(function () { $("table select").live("change", function () { var id = $(this).attr('id'); if ($(this).attr('classname') != "selected") { var rowIndex = $(this).closest('tr').prevAll().length; $.getJSON("/Category/GetSubCategories/" + $(this).val(), function (data) { if (data.length > 0) { //problematic portion $("#" + id).attr('classname', 'selected'); $("#" + id).attr('name', 'sel' + rowIndex); $("#" + id).attr('id', 'sel' + rowIndex); var position = ($('table').get(0)); var tr = position.insertRow(rowIndex + 1); var td1 = tr.insertCell(-1); var td2 = tr.insertCell(-1); td1.appendChild(document.createTextNode('SubCategory')); var sel = document.createElement("select"); sel.name = 'parent_id'; sel.id = 'parent_id'; sel.setAttribute('class', 'unselected'); td2.appendChild(sel); $('#parent_id').append($("<option></option>").attr("value", "-1").text("-please select item-")); $.each(data, function (GetSubCatergories, Category) { $('#parent_id').append($("<option></option>"). attr("value", Category.category_id). text(Category.name)); }); sel.name = 'cat.parent_id'; sel.id = 'cat.parent_id'; } }); } }); });

    Read the article

  • Events convention - I don't get it

    - by bobjink
    My class with an event: public class WindowModel { public delegate void WindowChangedHandler(object source, WindowTypeEventArgs e); public event WindowChangedHandler WindowChanged; public void GotoWindow(WindowType windowType) { this.currentWindow = windowType; this.WindowChanged.Invoke(this, new WindowTypeEventArgs(windowType)); } } Derived event class: public class WindowTypeEventArgs : EventArgs { public readonly WindowType windowType; public WindowTypeEventArgs(WindowType windowType) { this.windowType = windowType; } } Some other class that register it to the event: private void SetupEvents() { this.WindowModel.WindowChanged += this.ChangeWindow; } private void ChangeWindow(object sender, WindowTypeEventArgs e) { //change window } What have I gained from following the .Net convention? It would make more sense to have a contract like this public delegate void WindowChangedHandler(WindowType windowType); public event WindowChangedHandler WindowChanged; Doing it this way, I don't need to create a new class and is easier to understand. I am not coding a .Net library. This code is only going to be used in this project. I like conventions but am I right when I say that in this example it does not make sense or have i missunderstood something?

    Read the article

  • Objective C Naming Convention for an object that owns itself

    - by Ed Marty
    With the latest releases of XCode that contain static analyzers, some of my objects are throwing getting analyzer issues reported. Specifically, I have an object that owns itself and is responsible for releasing itself, but should also be returned to the caller and possibly retained there manually. If I have a method like + (Foo) newFoo the analyzer sees the word New and reports an issue in the caller saying that newFoo is expected to return an object with retain +1, and it isn't being released anywhere. If I name it + (Foo) getFoo the analyzer reports an issue in that method, saying there's a potential leak because it's not deallocated before returning. My class basically looks like this: + (Foo *) newFoo { Foo *myFoo = [[[Foo new] retain] autorelease]; [myFoo performSelectorInBackground:@selector(bar) withObject:nil]; return myFoo; } - (void) bar { //Do something that might take awhile [self release]; } The object owns itself and when its done, will release itself, but there's nowhere that it's being stored, so the static analyzer sees it as a leak somewhere. Is there some naming or coding convention to help?

    Read the article

  • Need for prefixing a function with (void)...

    - by puffadder
    Hi All, I recently came across a rather unusual coding convention wherein the call for a function returning "void" is prefixed with (void). e.g. (void) MyFunction(); Is it any different from the function call like: MyFunction(); Has it got any advantage or is it yet another needless but there coding convention of some sort?

    Read the article

  • C++ Coding Style Conventions Doc

    - by uray
    I need to write some coding style convention document in C++ for my team, is there any example or reference how such document is made, what should I define? which convention is should be avoided? is there any C++ coding style standard defined somewhere? or care to share some if you have one? *note: I know its been asked many time, but what I need is something like this http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConvTOC.doc.html but specifically for C++

    Read the article

  • What is the standard convention for defining nested view:viewmodel mapping in MVVM Light

    - by firoso
    so in classic MVVM examples ive seen DataTemplate definitions are used to map up View Models to Views, what is the standard way to do this in MVVM Light framework, and where should the mappings be located? Following are examples of what I'm doing now and what I'm talking about, blendability is important to me! Main Window: <Window xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" mc:Ignorable="d" x:Class="STS2Editor.MainWindow" Title="{Binding ApplicationTitle, Mode=OneWay}" DataContext="{Binding RootViewModel, Source={StaticResource Locator}}"> <Window.Resources> <ResourceDictionary> <ResourceDictionary.MergedDictionaries> <ResourceDictionary Source="Skins/ApplicationSkin.xaml" /> <ResourceDictionary Source="Resources/ViewMappings.xaml" /> </ResourceDictionary.MergedDictionaries> </ResourceDictionary> </Window.Resources> <Grid> <ContentControl Content="{Binding ApplicationManagementViewModel}" HorizontalAlignment="Left" VerticalAlignment="Top"/> </Grid> </Window> In the above code, my RootViewModel class has an instance of the class ApplicationManagementViewModel with the same property name: public ApplicationManagementViewModel ApplicationManagementViewModel {get {...} set {...} } I reference the ResourceDictionary "ViewMappings.xaml" to specify how my view model is represented as a view. <ResourceDictionary xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:local="clr-namespace:STS2Editor.ViewModel"> <DataTemplate DataType="{x:Type local:ApplicationManagementViewModel}"> <local:ApplicationManagementView/> </DataTemplate> </ResourceDictionary> should I be doing things like this using ViewModelLocator? what about collections of view models?

    Read the article

  • SVN naming convention: repository, branches, tags

    - by LookitsPuck
    Hey all! Just curious what your naming conventions are for the following: Repository name Branches Tags Right now, we're employing the following standards with SVN, but would like to improve on it: Each project has its own repository Each repository has a set of directories: tags, branches, trunk Tags are immutable copies of the the tree (release, beta, rc, etc.) Branches are typically feature branches Trunk is ongoing development (quick additions, bug fixes, etc.) Now, with that said, I'm curious how everyone is not only handling the naming of their repositories, but also their tags and branches. For example, do you employ a camel case structure for the project name? So, if your project is something like Backyard Baseball for Youngins, how do you handle that? backyardBaseballForYoungins backyard_baseball_for_youngins BackyardBaseballForYoungins backyardbaseballforyoungins That seems rather trivial, but it's a question. If you're going with the feature branch paradigm, how do you name your feature branches? After the feature itself in plain English? Some sort of versioning scheme? I.e. say you want to add functionality to the Backyard Baseball app that allows users to add their own statistics. What would you call your branch? {repoName}/branches/user-add-statistics {repoName}/branches/userAddStatistics {repoName}/branches/user_add_statistics etc. Or: {repoName}/branches/1.1.0.1 If you go the version route, how do you correlate the version numbers? It seems that feature branches wouldn't benefit much from a versioning schema, being that 1 developer could be working on the "user add statistics" functionality, and another developer could be working on the "admin add statistics" functionality. How are these do branch versions named? Are they better off being: {repoName}/branches/1.1.0.1 - user add statistics {repoName}/branches/1.1.0.2 - admin add statistics And once they're merged into the trunk, the trunk might increment appropriately? Tags seem like they'd benefit the most from version numbers. With that being said, how are you correlating the versions for your project (whether it be trunk, branch, tag, etc.) with SVN? I.e. how do you, as the developer, know that 1.1.1 has admin add statistics, and user add statistics functionality? How are these descriptive and linked? It'd make sense for tags to have release notes in each tag since they're immutable. But, yeah, what are your SVN policies going forward?

    Read the article

  • What is the C# static fields naming convention?

    - by Matt
    I have recently started using ReSharper which is a fantastic tool. Today I came across a naming rule for static fields, namely prefixing with an underscore ie. private static string _myString; Is this really the standard way to name static variables? If so is it just personal preference and style, or does it have some sort of lower level impact? Eg Compilation JIT etc? Where does this style originate from? I have always associated it with C++, is that correct?

    Read the article

  • Simple Convention Automapper for two-way Mapping (Entities to/from ViewModels)

    - by Omu
    UPDATE: this stuff has evolved into a nice project, see it at http://valueinjecter.codeplex.com check this out, I just wrote a simple automapper, it takes the value from the property with the same name and type of one object and puts it into another, and you can add exceptions (ifs, switch) for each type you may need so tell me what do you think about it ? I did it so I could do something like this: Product –> ProductDTO ProductDTO –> Product that's how it begun: I use the "object" type in my Inputs/Dto/ViewModels for DropDowns because I send to the html a IEnumerable<SelectListItem> and I receive a string array of selected keys back public void Map(object a, object b) { var pp = a.GetType().GetProperties(); foreach (var pa in pp) { var value = pa.GetValue(a, null); // property with the same name in b var pb = b.GetType().GetProperty(pa.Name); if (pb == null) { //no such property in b continue; } if (pa.PropertyType == pb.PropertyType) { pb.SetValue(b, value, null); } } } UPDATE: the real usage: the Build methods (Input = Dto): public static TI BuildInput<TI, T>(this T entity) where TI: class, new() { var input = new TI(); input = Map(entity, input) as TI; return input; } public static T BuildEntity<T, TI, TR>(this TI input) where T : class, new() where TR : IBaseAdvanceService<T> { var id = (long)input.GetType().GetProperty("Id").GetValue(input, null); var entity = LocatorConfigurator.Resolve<TR>().Get(id) ?? new T(); entity = Map(input, entity) as T; return entity; } public static TI RebuildInput<T, TI, TR>(this TI input) where T: class, new() where TR : IBaseAdvanceService<T> where TI : class, new() { return input.BuildEntity<T, TI, TR>().BuildInput<TI, T>(); } in the controller: public ActionResult Create() { return View(new Organisation().BuildInput<OrganisationInput, Organisation>()); } [AcceptVerbs(HttpVerbs.Post)] public ActionResult Create(OrganisationInput o) { if (!ModelState.IsValid) { return View(o.RebuildInput<Organisation,OrganisationInput, IOrganisationService>()); } organisationService.SaveOrUpdate(o.BuildEntity<Organisation, OrganisationInput, IOrganisationService>()); return RedirectToAction("Index"); } The real Map method public static object Map(object a, object b) { var lookups = GetLookups(); var propertyInfos = a.GetType().GetProperties(); foreach (var pa in propertyInfos) { var value = pa.GetValue(a, null); // property with the same name in b var pb = b.GetType().GetProperty(pa.Name); if (pb == null) { continue; } if (pa.PropertyType == pb.PropertyType) { pb.SetValue(b, value, null); } else if (lookups.Contains(pa.Name) && pa.PropertyType == typeof(LookupItem)) { pb.SetValue(b, (pa.GetValue(a, null) as LookupItem).GetSelectList(pa.Name), null); } else if (lookups.Contains(pa.Name) && pa.PropertyType == typeof(object)) { pb.SetValue(b, pa.GetValue(a, null).ReadSelectItemValue(), null); } else if (pa.PropertyType == typeof(long) && pb.PropertyType == typeof(Organisation)) { pb.SetValue(b, pa.GetValue<long>(a).ReadOrganisationId(), null); } else if (pa.PropertyType == typeof(Organisation) && pb.PropertyType == typeof(long)) { pb.SetValue(b, pa.GetValue<Organisation>(a).Id, null); } } return b; }

    Read the article

  • mysql naming convention

    - by Lizard
    I have generally always used some sort of Hungarian Notation for my field names in my tables e.g. #Table Users u_id, u_name, u_email etc... #Posts p_id, p_u_id, p_title, p_content etc... But I have recently been told that this isn't best practice. Is there a more standard way of doing this? I haven't really liked just using the field id as this is then requirs you to select table.field for fields names that appear in mutliple tables when using joins etc. Your thoughts on what is best practice would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Resharper function to fix naming convention issues

    - by Jan Jongboom
    A bunch of classes doesn't comply to our naming conventions for private variables. Resharper shows this as a warning, but wants me to fix all of them by hand. Is there some magic option to auto-fix these issues? 'Clean-up code' won't do anything with this. Same goes for converting properties with backing fields to automatic properties when possible: the hint is shown, but Resharper won't fix it automatically.

    Read the article

  • Unix file naming convention for effective tab completion?

    - by thebossman
    I feel like I often name files in such a way that my computer constantly beeps while I program because the tab completion is ambiguous. Before doing a lot of Unix programming, I tended to name related files with the same prefix to indicate their relation. Now I must re-think my approach to folder and file structures and names to program more effectively. What heuristics or rules do you apply when programming to simplify tab completion? Do you use any tools to make tab completion smoother (e.g., emacs icicles)?

    Read the article

  • Stack calling convention between .NET & C on WinCE 6.0

    - by bernard
    Hi there. I'm porting a DLL written in C from WinCE 5.0 to WinCE 6.0 on an ARM target. This DLL is called by a .NET software. On WinCE5.0, everything runs fine. On WinCE6, I have the following problem: on InitInstance() of my DLL, I can call anything without problem (for example MessageBox()) or uses recursivity. Passed that point, the DLL is called by .NET code. And then it fails: even the arguments passed by .NET code seem weird. I can call MessageBox() once, but I can't call a function that calls MessageBox() and then that calls itself: recursivity is broken. It seems that the .NET code uses the stack in a different way than my C code. I'm very unfamillar with the Windows world and the company that gives me the .NET application does not understand yet why there is such a failure. Any pointer/hint/advice welcome! Thanks!

    Read the article

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