Search Results

Search found 43093 results on 1724 pages for 'oracle best practice'.

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

Page 455/1724 | < Previous Page | 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462  | Next Page >

  • how to merge ecommerce transaction data between two databases

    - by yamspog
    We currently run an ecommerce solution for a leisure and travel company. Everytime we have a release, we must bring the ecommerce site down as we update database schema and the data access code. We are using a custom built ORM where each data entity is responsible for their own CRUD operations. This is accomplished by dynamically generating the SQL based on attributes in the data entity. For example, the data entity for an address would be... [tableName="address"] public class address : dataEntity { [column="address1"] public string address1; [column="city"] public string city; } So, if we add a new column to the database, we must update the schema of the database and also update the data entity. As you can expect, the business people are not too happy about this outage as it puts a crimp in their cash-flow. The operations people are not happy as they have to deal with a high-pressure time when database and applications are upgraded. The programmers are upset as they are constantly getting in trouble for the legacy system that they inherited. Do any of you smart people out there have some suggestions?

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between using IDisposable vs a destructor in C#?

    - by j0rd4n
    When would I implement IDispose on a class as opposed to a destructor? I read this article, but I'm still missing the point. My assumption is that if I implement IDispose on an object, I can explicitly 'destruct' it as opposed to waiting for the garbage collector to do it. Is this correct? Does that mean I should always explicitly call Dispose on an object? What are some common examples of this?

    Read the article

  • How to set default values to all wrong or null parameters of method?

    - by Roman
    At the moment I have this code (and I don't like it): private RenderedImage private RenderedImage getChartImage (GanttChartModel model, String title, Integer width, Integer height, String xAxisLabel, String yAxisLabel, Boolean showLegend) { if (title == null) { title = ""; } if (xAxisLabel == null) { xAxisLabel = ""; } if (yAxisLabel == null) { yAxisLabel = ""; } if (showLegend == null) { showLegend = true; } if (width == null) { width = DEFAULT_WIDTH; } if (height == null) { height = DEFAULT_HEIGHT; } ... } How can I improve it? I have some thoughts about introducing an object which will contain all these parameters as fields and then, maybe, it'll be possible to apply builder pattern. But still don't have clear vision how to implement that and I'm not sure that it's worth to be done. Any other ideas?

    Read the article

  • If you were developing shareware softwares for windows, would you target the .Net Framework or use n

    - by bohoo
    For the sake of the question, by 'shareware' I mean a software which is relatively small in size (up to few dozens of mb) and available for download and evaluation through a web site. I'm asking this question, because I don't understand something regarding the current state of windows commercial desktop development. It seems to me that: There is no reliable statistic regarding the extent of windows systems with .Net Framework installed. It makes no sense to force the end user to install the 20-60mb .Net for an application which may be smaller. Applications conforms to the term 'shareware' above have a big share on the win os market. Much of them don't need the capabilities of low level languages like c++, and therefore ideally they should be developed with a RAD enviroment. So, One would suppose there will be a blossom of RAD enviroments for native win code. But I know about only one - Delphi, and Delphi is so unpopular. How is that?

    Read the article

  • Self-Configuring Classes W/ Command Line Args: Pattern or Anti-Pattern?

    - by dsimcha
    I've got a program where a lot of classes have really complicated configuration requirements. I've adopted the pattern of decentralizing the configuration and allowing each class to take and parse the command line/configuration file arguments in its c'tor and do whatever it needs with them. (These are very coarse-grained classes that are only instantiated a few times, so there is absolutely no performance issue here.) This avoids having to do shotgun surgery to plumb new options I add through all the levels they need to be passed through. It also avoids having to specify each configuration option in multiple places (where it's parsed and where it's used). What are some advantages/disadvantages of this style of programming? It seems to reduce separation of concerns in that every class is now doing configuration stuff, and to make programs less self-documenting because what parameters a class takes becomes less explicit. OTOH, it seems to increase encapsulation in that it makes each class more self-contained because no other part of the program needs to know exactly what configuration parameters a class might need.

    Read the article

  • Best performance approach to history mechanism?

    - by Royi Namir
    We are going to create History Mechanism for our changes in DB (DART in pic) via Triggers. we have 600 tables. Each record that will be changed - the trigger will insert the deleted one into XXX. regarding to the XXX : option 1 : clone each table in "Dart" DB and each table now will have a "sister table" e.g. : Table1 will have Table1_History problems : we will have 1200 tables programmer can do mistakes by working on wrong tables... option 2 : make a new DB (DART_2005 in pic) and the history tables will be there option 3 : use linked server which stores the Db which will contain the history tables. question : 1) which option gives the best performance ( I guess 3 is not - but is it 1 or 2 or same ?) 2) Does option 2 is acting like "linked server" ( in queries we will need to select from both DB's...) 3) What is the best practice approach ?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages to use StringBuilder versus XmlDocument or related to create XML documetns?

    - by Rob
    This might be a bit of a code smell, but I have seen it is some production code, namely the use of StringBuilder as opposed to XmlDocument when creating XML documents. In some cases these are write once operations (e.g. create the document and save it to disk) where as others are passing the built string to an XmlDocument to preform an XslTransform to a document that is returned to the client. So obvious question: is there merit to doing things this way, is it something that should be done on a case-by-case basis, or is this the wrong way of doing things?

    Read the article

  • Standard Workflow when working with JPA

    - by jschoen
    I am currently trying to wrap my head around working with JPA. I can't help but feel like I am missing something or doing it the wrong way. It just seems forced so far. What I think I know so far is that their are couple of ways to work with JPA and tools to support this. You can do everything in Java using annotations, and let JPA (whatever implementation you decide to use) create your schema and update it when changes are made. You can use a tool to reverse engineer you database and generate the entity classes for you. When the schema is updated you have to regenerate these classes, or manually update them. There seems to be drawbacks to both, and benefits to both (as with all things). My question is in an ideal situation what is the standard workflow with JPA? Most schemas will require updates during the maintenance phase and especially during the development phase, so how is this handled?

    Read the article

  • What's the standard behaviour for an out parameter when a TryXxxx method returns false?

    - by Matt Lacey
    Assuming a method with the following signature bool TryXxxx(object something, out int toReturn) What is it acceptable for toReturn to be if TryXxxx returns false? In that it's infered that toReturn should never be used if TryXxxx fails does it matter? If toReturn was a nulable type, then it would make sense to return null. But int isn't nullable and I don't want to have to force it to be. If toReturn is always a certain value if TryXxxx fails we risk having the position where 2 values could be considered to indicate the same thing. I can see this leading to potential possible confusion if the 'default' value was returned as a valid response (when TryXxxx returns true). From an implementation point if view it looks like having toReturn be a[ny] value is easiest, but is there anything more important to consider?

    Read the article

  • How to handle 'this' pointer in constructor?

    - by Kyle
    I have objects which create other child objects within their constructors, passing 'this' so the child can save a pointer back to its parent. I use boost::shared_ptr extensively in my programming as a safer alternative to std::auto_ptr or raw pointers. So the child would have code such as shared_ptr<Parent>, and boost provides the shared_from_this() method which the parent can give to the child. My problem is that shared_from_this() cannot be used in a constructor, which isn't really a crime because 'this' should not be used in a constructor anyways unless you know what you're doing and don't mind the limitations. Google's C++ Style Guide states that constructors should merely set member variables to their initial values. Any complex initialization should go in an explicit Init() method. This solves the 'this-in-constructor' problem as well as a few others as well. What bothers me is that people using your code now must remember to call Init() every time they construct one of your objects. The only way I can think of to enforce this is by having an assertion that Init() has already been called at the top of every member function, but this is tedious to write and cumbersome to execute. Are there any idioms out there that solve this problem at any step along the way?

    Read the article

  • How to not over-use jQuery?

    - by Fedyashev Nikita
    Typical jQuery over-use: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + $(this).attr('id')); }); Which can be simplified to: $('button').click(function() { alert('Button clicked: ' + this.id); }); Which is way faster. Can you give me any more examples of similar jQuery over-use?

    Read the article

  • When should I write my own Look and Feel for Java Swing instead of customizing one?

    - by Jonas
    I have used a few different Look and Feels for Java Swing, but I don't really like anyone to 100% so I often end up with customizing it a lot. Sometimes I am thinking about if it is a better idea to write my own LaF (by extending an existing one), but I don't really know. For the moment, I mostly use Nimbus, but I change all colors (to darker ones) and rewrite the appearance of some components, like sliders and scrollbars. I also mostly customize all tables and I am thinking about to change the look of a few other components. When is it recommended to create a new Look-and-Feel instead of customizing one? What are the pros and cons? I.e. customize Nimbus or create a new one by extending Nimbus? Related article: Creating a Custom Look and Feel (old)

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to put link to SO questions in a program comments?

    - by WizardOfOdds
    In quite some codebase you can see comments stating things like: // Workaround for defect 'xxx', (See bug 1434594 on Sun's bugparade) So I've got a few questions, but they're all related. Is it OK to put link to SO questions in a program's comments: // We're now mapping from the "sorted-on column" to original indices. // // There's apparently no easy way to do this in Java, so we're // re-inventing a wheel. // // (see why here, in SO question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/951848) Do you do it? And what are the drawbacks in doing so? (see my first comment for a terrible drawback)

    Read the article

  • How do you PEP 8-name a class whose name is an acronym?

    - by Arrieta
    I try to adhere to the style guide for Python code (also known as PEP 8). Accordingly, the preferred way to name a class is using CamelCase: Almost without exception, class names use the CapWords convention. Classes for internal use have a leading underscore in addition. How can I be consistent with PEP 8 if my class name is formed by two acronyms (which in proper English should be capitalized). For instance, if my class name was 'NASA JPL', what would you name it?: class NASAJPL(): # 1 class NASA_JPL(): # 2 class NasaJpl(): # 3 I am using #1, but it looks weird; #3 looks weird too, and #2 seems to violate PEP 8. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • JavaScript-library-based Project Organization

    - by Laith J
    Hello, I'm very new to the JavaScript library world. I have used JS by itself before to create a mini social network but this is the first time I use a JS library and I really don't know how to go about this. I'm planning to use Google Closure and I'm really not sure how I should go about organizing the code. Should I put everything in one file since it's a web app and should have one screen? Should I separate the code to many chunks and put them in different files? Or should I put different dialogs (like settings) in a separate page and thus a separate file? Like all programmers I'm a perfectionist so please help me out with this one, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where to draw the line between efficiency and practicality

    - by dclowd9901
    I understand very well the need for websites' front ends to be coded and compressed as much as possible, however, I feel like I have more lax standards than others when it comes to practical applications. For instance, while I understand why some would, I don't see anything wrong with putting selectors in the <html> or <body> tags on a website with an expected small visitation rate. I would only do this for a cheap website for a small client, because I can't really justify the cost of time otherwise. So, that said, do you think it's okay to draw a line? Where do you draw yours?

    Read the article

  • How to make a jQuery plugin (the right way)?

    - by macek
    I know there are jQuery cookie plugins out there, but I wanted to write one for the sake of better learning the jQuery plugin pattern. I like the separation of "work" in small, manageable functions, but I feel like I'm passing name, value, and options arguments around too much. Is there a way this can be refactored? I'm looking for snippets of code to help illustrate examples provided with in answers. Any help is appreciated. Thanks :) example usage $.cookie('foo', 'bar', {expires:7}); $.cookie('foo'); //=> bar $.cookie('foo', null); $.cookie('foo'); //=> undefined Edit: I did a little bit of work on this. You can view the revision history to see where this has come from. It still feels like more refactoring can be done to optimize the flow a bit. Any ideas? the plugin (function($){ $.cookie = function(name, value, options) { if (typeof value == 'undefined') { return get(name); } else { options = $.extend({}, $.cookie.defaults, options || {}); return (value != null) ? set(name, value, options) : unset(name, options); } }; $.cookie.defaults = { expires: null, path: '/', domain: null, secure: false }; var set = function(name, value, options){ console.log(options); return document.cookie = options_string(name, value, options); }; var get = function(name){ var cookies = {}; $.map(document.cookie.split(';'), function(pair){ var c = $.trim(pair).split('='); cookies[c[0]] = c[1]; }); return decodeURIComponent(cookies[name]); }; var unset = function(name, options){ value = ''; options.expires = -1; set(name, value, options); }; var options_string = function(name, value, options){ var pairs = [param.name(name, value)]; $.each(options, function(k,v){ pairs.push(param[k](v)); }); return $.map(pairs, function(p){ return p === null ? null : p; }).join(';'); }; var param = { name: function(name, value){ return name + "=" + encodeURIComponent(value); }, expires: function(value){ // no expiry if(value === null){ return null; } // number of days else if(typeof value == "number"){ d = new Date(); d.setTime(d.getTime() + (value * 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000)); } // date object else if(typeof value == "object" && value instanceof "Date") { d = value; } return "expires=" + d.toUTCString(); }, path: function(value){ return "path="+value; }, domain: function(value){ return value === null ? null : "domain=" + value; }, secure: function(bool){ return bool ? "secure" : null; } }; })(jQuery);

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to explicitly compare against boolean constants e.g. if (b == false) in Java?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Is it bad to write: if (b == false) //... while (b != true) //... Is it always better to instead write: if (!b) //... while (!b) //... Presumably there is no difference in performance (or is there?), but how do you weigh the explicitness, the conciseness, the clarity, the readability, etc between the two? Note: the variable name b is just used as an example, ala foo and bar.

    Read the article

  • De-normalization for the sake of reports - Good or Bad?

    - by Travis
    What are the pros/cons of de-normalizing an enterprise application database because it will make writing reports easier? Pro - designing reports in SSRS will probably be "easier" since no joins will be necessary. Con - developing/maintaining the app to handle de-normalized data will become more difficult due to duplication of data and synchronization. Others?

    Read the article

  • HTTP POST with URL query parameters -- good idea or not?

    - by Steven Huwig
    I'm designing an API to go over HTTP and I am wondering if using the HTTP POST command, but with URL query parameters only and no request body, is a good way to go. Considerations: "Good Web design" requires non-idempotent actions to be sent via POST. This is a non-idempotent action. It is easier to develop and debug this app when the request parameters are present in the URL. The API is not intended for widespread use. It seems like making a POST request with no body will take a bit more work, e.g. a Content-Length: 0 header must be explicitly added. It also seems to me that a POST with no body is a bit counter to most developer's and HTTP frameworks' expectations. Are there any more pitfalls or advantages to sending parameters on a POST request via the URL query rather than the request body? Edit: The reason this is under consideration is that the operations are not idempotent and have side effects other than retrieval. See the HTTP spec: In particular, the convention has been established that the GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval. These methods ought to be considered "safe". This allows user agents to represent other methods, such as POST, PUT and DELETE, in a special way, so that the user is made aware of the fact that a possibly unsafe action is being requested. ... Methods can also have the property of "idempotence" in that (aside from error or expiration issues) the side-effects of N 0 identical requests is the same as for a single request. The methods GET, HEAD, PUT and DELETE share this property. Also, the methods OPTIONS and TRACE SHOULD NOT have side effects, and so are inherently idempotent.

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462  | Next Page >