Search Results

Search found 2923 results on 117 pages for 'naming standards'.

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 5/117 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Part 4: Development Standards or How to share

    - by volker.eckardt(at)oracle.com
    Although we usually introduce the custom development part in EBS projects as “a small piece only” and “we will avoid as best as possible”, the development effort can be enormous and should therefore be well addressed by project standards. Any additional solution or additional software tool or product shall influence the custom development rules (by adding, removing or replacing sections). It is very common in EBS projects to create a so called “MD.030 Development Standards” document and put everything what’s related to development conventions into it. This document gets approval and will be shared among all developers. Later, additional sections have to be added, and usually the development lead is responsible for doing this. However, sometimes used development techniques are not documented properly, and therefore the development solutions deviate from each other, or from the initially agreed standards. My advice would be the following: keep the MD.030 as a base document, and add a Wiki on top. The “Development Wiki” covers the following: Collect input from every developer without updating the MD.030 directly Collect additional topics that might need further specification Allow a discussion about such topics by reviewing/updating the wiki directly Add also decisions or open questions right into it. In one of my own projects we were using this “Developer Wiki” quite extensive, and my experience is very positive. We had different sections in it, good cross references, but also additional material like code templates, links to external web pages etc. By using this wiki, the development standards became “owned” by the right group of people, the developers. They recognized that information sharing can improve the overall development quality, but will also reduce the workload on individuals. Finally, the wiki was much more accurate and helpful for the daily development work than our initial MD.030, and we all decided to retire the document completely. Summary: Information sharing in the development area is very important! The usual “MD.030 Development Standards“ is a good starting point, but should be combined with a “Development Wiki”, allowing everyone to address and discuss necessary improvements. A well-structured Wiki can replace the document in some sections completely. Side Note: The corresponding task in Oracle OUM (Oracle Unified Method) is DS.050 ‘Determine Design and Build Standards’ Volker

    Read the article

  • Evolution in coding standards, how do you deal with them?

    - by WardB
    How do you deal with evolution in the coding standards / style guide in a project for the existing code base? Let's say someone on your team discovered a better way of object instantiation in the programming language. It's not that the old way is bad or buggy, it's just that the new way is less verbose and feels much more elegant. And all team members really like it. Would you change all exisiting code? Let's say your codebase is about 500.000+ lines of code. Would you still want to change all existing code? Or would you only let new code adhere to the new standard? Basically lose consistency? How do you deal with an evolution in the coding standards on your project?

    Read the article

  • topic-comment naming of functions/methods

    - by Daniel
    I was looking at American Sign Language the other day... and I noticed that the construction of the language was topic-comment. As in "Weather is good". That got me to thinking about why we name methods/functions in the manner of: function getName() { ... } function setName(v) { ... } If we think about naming in a topic-comment function, the function names would be function nameGet() { ... } function nameSet() { ... } This might be better for a class had multiple purposes. IE: class events { function ListAdd(); function ListDelete(); function ListGet(); function EventAdd(); function EventDelete(); function EventGet(); } This way the functions are grouped by "topic". Where as the former naming, functions are grouped Action-Noun, but are sorted by Noun. I thought this was an interesting POV, what do other people think about naming functions/methods Topic-Comment? Obviously, mixing naming conventions up in the same project would be weird, but overall? -daniel

    Read the article

  • What are some Maven project naming conventions for web application module?

    - by Jared Pearson
    When creating a project with the webapp archetype in Maven, they subtly advise not putting any Java source in the webapp project by not including the "src/main/java" folder. What do you name your Maven projects? project-webapp for the project that contains the JSP, CSS, Images, etc. project for the project that contains domain specific entities ? for the project that contains the web application files like Servlets, Listeners, etc. My first inclination would be to use "webapp" for the project containing the web application files (Servlets/Listeners), however the archetype uses "webapp" to convey the JSP/CSS/Images project and would cause confusion to other developers.

    Read the article

  • Python Naming Conventions for Dictionaries/Maps/Hashes

    - by pokstad
    While other questions have tackled the broader category of sequences and modules, I ask this very specific question: "What naming convention do you use for dictionaries and why?" Some naming convention samples I have been considering: # 'value' is the data type stored in the map, while 'key' is the type of key value_for_key={key1:value1, key2,value2} value_key={key1:value1, key2,value2} v_value_k_key={key1:value1, key2,value2} Don't bother answering the 'why' with "because my work tells me to", not very helpful. The reason driving the choice is more important. Are there any other good considerations for a dictionary naming convention aside from readability?

    Read the article

  • iPhone/Cocoa Coding Standards

    - by greypoint
    Are there any generally-accepted coding standards (naming, casting etc) that apply specifically to iPhone/Cocoa/Objective-C? I know Microsoft has published similar standards as they relate to .Net and C# but haven't run across anything related to the iPhone world.

    Read the article

  • What are naming conventions for SQL Server ?

    - by newbie
    I need to create database for SQL Server, what kind of naming convention I sohuld use? 1) Table names could be : customer, Customer, CUSTOMER 2) Field names could be : customer_id, CustomerId, CustomerID, CUSTOMER_ID, customerid, CUSTOMERID and so on... Is there any official suggestion for naming conventions or what is msot common way to name tables and fields?

    Read the article

  • Rules for Naming

    - by PointsToShare
    © 2011 By: Dov Trietsch. All rights reserved Naming Documents (or is it “Document, Naming”?) Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself.  Shakespeare – Romeo and Juliet Act II, Scene 2 We normally only use the bold portion of the famous Shakespearean quote above, but it is really out of context. As the play unfolds, we learn that a name is all too powerful. Indeed it is because of their names that the doomed lovers die. There might be life and death in a name (BTW, when I wrote this monogram, I was in Hatfield, PA. Remember the Hatfields and the McCoys?) This is a bit extreme, but in the field of Knowledge Management (KM) names are of the utmost importance as well. When I write an article about managing SharePoint sites, how should I name it? “Managing a site” or “Site, managing”? Nine times out of ten I’d opt for the latter. Almost everything we do is “Managing” so to make life easier for a person looking for meaningful content, we title our articles starting with the differentiator rather than the common factor. As a rule of thumb, we start the name with the noun rather than the verb. It is not what we do that is the primary key; it is what we do it to. So, answer this – is it a “rule of thumb” or a “thumb rule?” This is tough. A lot of what we do when naming is a judgment call. Both thumb and rule are nouns, albeit concrete and abstract (more about this later), but to most people “thumb rule” is meaningless while “rule of thumb” is an idiom. The difference between knowledge and information is that knowledge is meaningful information placed in context. Thus I elect the “rule of thumb”. It is the more meaningful title. Abstract and Concrete are relative terms. Many nouns (and verbs) that are abstract to a commoner, are concrete to a practitioner of one profession or another and may even have different concrete meanings in different professional jargons. Think about “running”. To an executive it means running a business, to a marathoner its meaning is much more literal. Generally speaking, we store and disseminate knowledge within a practice more than we do it in general. Even dictionaries encyclopedias define terms as they apply to different audiences. The rule of thumb is to put the more concrete first, but within the audience’s jargon. Even the title of this monogram is a question. Do I name it “Naming Documents” or “Documents, Naming”? Well, my own rule of thumb (“Here he goes again!?”) states that the latter is better because it starts with a noun, but this is a document about naming more than it about documents. The rules of naming also apply to graphs and charts, excel spreadsheets, and so on. Thus, I vote for the former.  A better title could have been “Naming Objects” only the word “Object” is a bit too abstract. How about just “Naming” or “Naming, rules of”? You get the drift. One of the ways to resolve all of this is to store the documents in Knowledge-Bases, which may become the subjects of a future punditry. Knowledge bases use keywords to describe their content.  Use a Metadata store for the keywords to at least attempt some common grounds. Here is another general rule (rule of thumb?!!) – put at least the one keyword in the title. Use subtitles. Here is an example: Migrating documents – Screening, cleaning, and organizing our knowledge. The main keyword is “documents”, next is “migrating”, other keywords also appear in the subtitle. They are “screening”, “cleaning”, and “organizing”. Any questions? Send me an amply named document by email: [email protected]

    Read the article

  • Naming Convention for Blackberry Development

    - by Nirmal
    I have gone through with some of the sample examples of blackberry. And in some classes I have found some variables are starting from _ like _address and some of them are ALLCAPS. So, i guess it's bit different then the basic Java naming conventions. So, can anybody let me know that is there any difference between Java and blackberry naming convention ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • What norms/standards should I follow when writing a functional spec?

    - by user970696
    I would like to know what documents (ISO?) should I follow when I write a functional specification. Or what should designers follow when creating the system design? I was told that there was a progress in last years but was not told what the progress was in (college professor). Thank you EDIT: I do not speak about document content etc. but about standards for capturing requirements, for business analysis.

    Read the article

  • SQL cluster instance names for large project

    - by Sam
    We're setting up two clusters. One dev and one prod. The Production will host two SQL instances - a OLTP and a DW. The development will host 4 OLTP non-production environments and at least one DW non-production. We're working on getting more DW non-prods and possibly more OLTP systems. I'm considering a naming scheme like this, where PROJ would be 3 initials for the project name. Dev Cluster MSSQLPROJD1\D1 (DEV) MSSQLPROJD2\D2 (TEST) MSSQLPROJD3\D3 (QA) MSSQLPROJD4\D4 (STAGE) MSSQLPROJD5\D5 (DW) Prd Cluster MSSQLPROJP1\P1 (PRD) MSSQLPROJP2\P2 (DW) To the left of the slash, each name must be unique network wide. On each server, the instance name, to the right of the slash, must be unique. Any thoughts on this? I'm trying to avoid having instance names drifting from reality as the project progresses - say we change what we call a certain environment or want to repurpose one. Then we can update a listing of the purposes for the instances and be done with it. How has a scheme like this worked out for you? Maybe you do things another way in your shop - tell me about it. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to make developers follow coding standards?

    - by Josh
    How can I make developers follow coding standards? In our company: I've given documents and they don't have the patience to read it and follow it. I've tried telling them again and again "please do it this way" they nod their heads, but still do it the wrong way We're doing a project for the third time and still they don't seem to follow it properly. I'm now so tired of this. What is the best way to set standards for coding and make sure they follow them? Edit: There are just about 10 developers in my team. They're over pressurized and do not take the time to put comments and do the code neatly since there's more pressure to complete the product from our management. What would be the solution for this?

    Read the article

  • Naming conventions: camelCase versus underscore_case ? what are your thoughts about it? [closed]

    - by poelinca
    I've been using underscore_case for about 2 years and I recently switched to camelCase because of the new job (been using the later one for about 2 months and I still think underscore_case is better suited for large projects where there are alot of programmers involved, mainly because the code is easier to read). Now everybody at work uses camelCase because (so they say) the code looks more elegant . What are you're thoughts about camelCase or underscore_case p.s. please excuse my bad english Edit Some update first: platform used is PHP (but I'm not expecting strict PHP platform related answers , anybody can share their thoughts on which would be the best to use , that's why I came here in the first place) I use camelCase just as everibody else in the team (just as most of you recomend) we use Zend Framework which also recommends camelCase Some examples (related to PHP) : Codeigniter framework recommends underscore_case , and honestly the code is easier to read . ZF recomends camelCase and I'm not the only one who thinks ZF code is a tad harder to follow through. So my question would be rephrased: Let's take a case where you have the platform Foo which doesn't recommend any naming conventions and it's the team leader's choice to pick one. You are that team leader, why would you pick camelCase or why underscore_case? p.s. thanks everybody for the prompt answers so far

    Read the article

  • Naming conventions: camelCase versus underscore_case ? what are your thoughts about it?

    - by poelinca
    I've been using underscore_case for about 2 years and I recently switched to camelCase because of the new job (been using the later one for about 2 months and I still think underscore_case is better suited for large projects where there are alot of programmers involved, mainly because the code is easyer to read). Now everybody at work uses camelCase because (so they say) the code looks more elegant . What are you're thoughts about camelCase or underscore_case p.s. please excuse my bad english Edit Some update first: platform used is PHP (but I'm not expecting strict PHP platform related answers , anybody can share their thoughts on which would be the best to use , that's why I came here in the first place) I use camelCase just as everibody else in the team (just as most of you recomend) we use Zend Framework which also recommends camelCase Some examples (related to PHP) : Codeigniter framework recommends underscore_case , and honestly the code is easier to read . ZF recomends camelCase and I'm not the only one who thinks ZF code is a tad harder to follow through. So my question would be rephrased: Let's take a case where you have the platform Foo which doesn't recommend any naming conventions and it's the team leader's choice to pick one. You are that team leader, why would you pick camelCase or why underscore_case? p.s. thanks everybody for the prompt answers so far

    Read the article

  • CakePHP HABTM Plugin table naming conventions (for 1.3)

    - by Parris
    Hi everyone, I know naming conventions for tables used by plugins generally start with the name of the plugin and then the model pluralized. For example lets say I had a plugin called Poll, with a model also called PollPoll and another model called PollTag then the resulting table names would be poll_polls and poll_tags. They would also have a habtm relationship so what is the convention for that table name? I believe it would poll_poll_polls_poll_tags, although it is a little redundant it makes sense since the first poll_ represents the name of the plugin, while poll_polls and poll_tags relates to the models. Also have any naming conventions changed for plugins in 1.3? Is the above stated correct? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Is there a framework for describing object oriented communication standards/protocols?

    - by martin
    Currently I'm dealing with the development of specifications for communication standards/protocols for b2b-integration based on object oriented models. I.e. if you take a look at the healthcare domain there is HL7v3 with its HDF. Now I ask if there is a more generic framework, that describes how a specification for a communication standard should be developed. For b2b-integration I want to describe a communication standard based on uml models for a broad domain. My thought was to divide the domain into subdomains and derive message type from the resulting model. There is already a given framework, but I want to compare it to another framework. My idea is to compare them using a generic framework. It should describe several levels. Does anybody know such a framework? I have searched a while on google scholar, but haven't an appropiate framework yet. The only thing I have found is ebXML, but I think it is not exactly what I need.

    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

  • 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

  • Non-english domain naming issues in programming

    - by Svend
    Most programming code, I imagine is written in english. But I'm curious how people handling the issue of naming herein. Alot of programming is done within some bussiness domain, usually with well established terms for certain procedures, items. I'm from Denmark for instance, and something I work alot with has a term called "indblikskode", which sorta translates to "insight code". So, do I use the line "string indblikskode = ..." in the C# code for some webservice related to this? Or do I try to use a translation, such as "insightcode"? The bussiness I'm in isn't even consistent in it's language, for instance using the term "organisatorisk enhed" (organizatorical unit), but just as often using the abbreviation "OU", which is obviously abbreviated from the english. How do other people handle this naming issue, while keeping consistent, and sane (in everything from simple variable names in your code, to database tables, to server names)? Duplicates: Should identifiers and comments be always in English or in the native language of the application and developers? Do you use another language instead of english ?

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