Search Results

Search found 1477 results on 60 pages for 'advantages'.

Page 52/60 | < Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >

  • SQL Server CLR stored procedures in data processing tasks - good or evil?

    - by Gart
    In short - is it a good design solution to implement most of the business logic in CLR stored procedures? I have read much about them recently but I can't figure out when they should be used, what are the best practices, are they good enough or not. For example, my business application needs to parse a large fixed-length text file, extract some numbers from each line in the file, according to these numbers apply some complex business rules (involving regex matching, pattern matching against data from many tables in the database and such), and as a result of this calculation update records in the database. There is also a GUI for the user to select the file, view the results, etc. This application seems to be a good candidate to implement the classic 3-tier architecture: the Data Layer, the Logic Layer, and the GUI layer. The Data Layer would access the database The Logic Layer would run as a WCF service and implement the business rules, interacting with the Data Layer The GUI Layer would be a means of communication between the Logic Layer and the User. Now, thinking of this design, I can see that most of the business rules may be implemented in a SQL CLR and stored in SQL Server. I might store all my raw data in the database, run the processing there, and get the results. I see some advantages and disadvantages of this solution: Pros: The business logic runs close to the data, meaning less network traffic. Process all data at once, possibly utilizing parallelizm and optimal execution plan. Cons: Scattering of the business logic: some part is here, some part is there. Questionable design solution, may encounter unknown problems. Difficult to implement a progress indicator for the processing task. I would like to hear all your opinions about SQL CLR. Does anybody use it in production? Are there any problems with such design? Is it a good thing?

    Read the article

  • Pros & Cons of Google App Engine

    - by Rishi
    Pros & Cons of Google App Engine [An Updated List 21st Aug 09] Help me Compile a List of all the Advantages & Disadvantages of Building an Application on the Google App Engine Pros: 1) No Need to buy Servers or Server Space (no maintenance). 2) Makes solving the problem of scaling much easier. Cons: 1) Locked into Google App Engine ?? 2)Developers have read-only access to the filesystem on App Engine. 3)App Engine can only execute code called from an HTTP request (except for scheduled background tasks). 4)Users may upload arbitrary Python modules, but only if they are pure-Python; C and Pyrex modules are not supported. 5)App Engine limits the maximum rows returned from an entity get to 1000 rows per Datastore call. 6)Java applications may only use a subset (The JRE Class White List) of the classes from the JRE standard edition. 7)Java applications cannot create new threads. Known Issues!! http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/list Hard limits Apps per developer - 10 Time per request - 30 sec Files per app - 3,000 HTTP response size - 10 MB Datastore item size - 1 MB Application code size - 150 MB Pro or Con? App Engine's infrastructure removes many of the system administration and development challenges of building applications to scale to millions of hits. Google handles deploying code to a cluster, monitoring, failover, and launching application instances as necessary. While other services let users install and configure nearly any *NIX compatible software, App Engine requires developers to use Python or Java as the programming language and a limited set of APIs. Current APIs allow storing and retrieving data from a BigTable non-relational database; making HTTP requests; sending e-mail; manipulating images; and caching. Most existing Web applications can't run on App Engine without modification, because they require a relational database.

    Read the article

  • F# Active Pattern List.filter or equivalent

    - by akaphenom
    I have a records of types type tradeLeg = { id : int ; tradeId : int ; legActivity : LegActivityType ; actedOn : DateTime ; estimates : legComponents ; entryType : ShareOrDollarBased ; confirmedPrice: DollarsPerShare option; actuals : legComponents option ; type trade = { id : int ; securityId : int ; ricCode : string ; tradeActivity : TradeType ; enteredOn : DateTime ; closedOn : DateTime ; tradeLegs : tradeLeg list ; } Obviously the tradeLegs are a type off of a trade. A leg may be settled or unsettled (or unsettled but price confirmed) - thus I have defined the active pattern: let (|LegIsSettled|LegIsConfirmed|LegIsUnsettled|) (l: tradeLeg) = if Helper.exists l.actuals then LegIsSettled elif Helper.exists l.confirmedPrice then LegIsConfirmed else LegIsUnsettled and then to determine if a trade is settled (based on all legs matching LegIsSettled pattern: let (|TradeIsSettled|TradeIsUnsettled|) (t: trade) = if List.exists ( fun l -> match l with | LegIsSettled -> false | _ -> true) t.tradeLegs then TradeIsSettled else TradeIsUnsettled I can see some advantages of this use of active patterns, however i would think there is a more efficient way to see if any item of a list either matches (or doesn't) an actie pattern without having to write a lambda expression specifically for it, and using List.exist. Question is two fold: is there a more concise way to express this? is there a way to abstract the functionality / expression (fun l - match l with | LegIsSettled - false | _ - true) Such that let itemMatchesPattern pattern item = match item with | pattern -> true | _ -> false such I could write (as I am reusing this design-pattern): let curriedItemMatchesPattern = itemMatchesPattern LegIsSettled if List.exists curriedItemMatchesPattern t.tradeLegs then TradeIsSettled else TradeIsUnsettled Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Are SharePoint site templates really less performant than site definitions?

    - by Jim
    So, it seems in the SharePoint blogosphere that everybody just copies and pastes the same bullet points from other blogs. One bullet point I've seen is that SharePoint site templates are less performant than site definitions because site definitions are stored on the file system. Is that true? It seems odd that site templates would be less performant. It's my understanding that all site content lives in a database, whether you use a site template or a site definition. A site template is applied once to the database, and from then on the site should not care if the content was created using a site template or not. So, does anybody have an architectural reason why a site template would be less performant than a site definition? Edit: Links to the blogs that say there is a performance difference: From MSDN: Because it is slow to store templates in and retrieve them from the database, site templates can result in slower performance. From DevX: However, user templates in SharePoint can lead to performance problems and may not be the best approach if you're trying to create a set of reusable templates for an entire organization. From IT Footprint: Because it is slow to store templates in and retrieve them from the database, site templates can result in slower performance. Templates in the database are compiled and executed every time a page is rendered. From Branding SharePoint:Custom site definitions hold the following advantages over custom templates: Data is stored directly on the Web servers, so performance is typically better. At a minimum, I think the above articles are incomplete, and I think several are misleading based on what I know of SharePoints architecture. I read another blog post that argued against the performance differences, but I can't find the link.

    Read the article

  • Templates vs. coded HTML

    - by Alan Harris-Reid
    I have a web-app consisting of some html forms for maintaining some tables (SQlite, with CherryPy for web-server stuff). First I did it entirely 'the Python way', and generated html strings via. code, with common headers, footers, etc. defined as functions in a separate module. I also like the idea of templates, so I tried Jinja2, which I find quite developer-friendly. In the beginning I thought templates were the way to go, but that was when pages were simple. Once .css and .js files were introduced (not necessarily in the same folder as the .html files), and an ever-increasing number of {{...}} variables and {%...%} commands were introduced, things started getting messy at design-time, even though they looked great at run-time. Things got even more difficult when I needed additional javascript in the or sections. As far as I can see, the main advantages of using templates are: Non-dynamic elements of page can easily be viewed in browser during design. Except for {} placeholders, html is kept separate from python code. If your company has a web-page designer, they can still design without knowing Python. while some disadvantages are: {{}} delimiters visible when viewed at design-time in browser Associated .css and .js files have to be in same folder to see effects in browser at design-time. Data, variables, lists, etc., must be prepared in advanced and either declared globally or passed as parameters to render() function. So - when to use 'hard-coded' HTML, and when to use templates? I am not sure of the best way to go, so I would be interested to hear other developers' views. TIA, Alan

    Read the article

  • Windows with Plesk Panel installs ActiveState Python 2.5.0 - any thoughts?

    - by B Mahoney
    I expect to run Pylons on a Windows Server 2003 and IIS 6 on a Virtual Private Server (VPS). Most work with the VPS is done through the Plesk 8.6 panel. The Plesk panel has a lot of maintenance advantages for us. However, this Plesk configuration installs ActiveState Python 2.5.0. The Parallels Plesk documents for 8.6 and version 9 insist that only this configuration should be installed. I'm not eager to settle for the baseline 2.5.0. but don't see any safe upgrade path. How has ActiveState Python 2.5.0 been for other users? Can you replace the Parallels\Plesk\Additional\Python with another distribution? I don't want to break Plesk, please. Previously, I followed these instructions, Serving a Pylons app with IIS - Pylons Cookbook Using the default web site IP address, I had Python 2.6.3 installing the ISAPI-WSGI dll in IIS so that I successfully ran Pylons in a virutalenv through IIS using the IP address, no domain name. I would be so happy if I could run this successful configuration for my domains while I must use Plesk. Tips and solutions appreciated.

    Read the article

  • css hover vs. javascript mouseover

    - by John
    There are times when I have a choice between using a css element:hover or javascript onmouseover to control the appearance of html elements on a page. Consider the following scenario where a DIV wraps an INPUT <div> <input id="input"> </div> I want the input to change background color when the mouse cursor hovers over the div. The CSS approach is <style> input {background-color:White;} div:hover input {background-color:Blue;} </style> <div><input></div> The javascript approach is <div onmouseover="document.getElementById('input').style.backgroundColor='Blue';"> <input id="input"> </div> What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Does the CSS approach work well with most web browsers? Is javascript slower than css?

    Read the article

  • Version control for PHP Developement

    - by Vinod Mohan
    Hello, I have been hearing a lot about the advantages of using a version control system and would like to try one. I was doing freelance web development in PHP for the past 2 years, two months back I hired two more programmer to help me. I will be hiring one more person soon. We maintain 4 websites, all of which are my own, which are continuously being edited by one of us. I learned PHP by myself and have never worked in any other firms. Hence I am new to version control, unit testing and all. Currently, we have development servers on our workstations. When we edit a particular section of a site, we download the code for that particular section (say /news/ or /movies/ or /wallpapers/ ) from the production server to the dev server, makes the changes locally and uploads to the production server (no code review / testing). Because of this, our dev server is always out of date from our prod server. Occasionally, this also create problem when one of us forgets to download the latest copy from prod and overwrites the last change. I know this is very very foolish, but currently our prod server is the only copy that has all the updates and latest changes. Can anyone please suggest which is the best version control system for me? I am more interested in distributed version control, since we don't have a central backup for all our code. I read about Mercurial and Git and found that Mercurial is used in several large open source projects by Mozilla, Sun, Symbian etc. So which one do you think is better for me? Not only version control, if there are any other package that I can use to make my current setup better, please mention that too :) Thanks and Regards, Vinod Mohan

    Read the article

  • GWT, MVP, and UIBinding - How to get the best of all worlds

    - by Stephane Grenier
    With MVP, you normally bind the View (UI) with the Presenter in the Presenter. However with the latest version of GWT, especially with UIBinding, you can do the following in the View: @UiHandler("loginButton") void onAboutClicked(ClickEvent event) { // my login code } Which basically exchanges a lot of anonymous inner class code for some quick annotation code. Very nice!! The problem is that this code is in the view and not the presenter... So I thought maybe: @UiHandler("loginButton") void onAboutClicked(ClickEvent event) { myPresenter.onAboutClicked(...); } But there are several problems with this approach. The most important, you blur the lines between View and Presenter. Who does which binding, in some cases it's the View, in others it's the presenter (binding to events not in your current view but that need to be attached - for example a system wide update event). You still get the benefit of being able to unit test your presenter, but at what cost. The responsibilities are messy now. For example the binding is sometimes in the View and others times in the Presenter level. I can see the code falling into all kinds of chaos with time. I also thought of extending the Presenter to the View, so that you could do this in the View. The problem here is that you lose the Presenter's ability to run standard unit tests! That's a major issue. That and the lines again become blurred. So my question, does anyone have a good method of taking advantage of the annotation from UIBinding within the MVP pattern without blurring the lines and losing the advantages of the MVP pattern?

    Read the article

  • Merging: hg/git vs. svn

    - by stmax
    I often read that hg (and git and...) are better at merging than svn but I have never seen practical examples of where hg/git can merge something where svn fails (or where svn needs manual intervention). Could you post a few step-by-step lists of branch/modify/commit/...-operations that show where svn would fail while hg/git happily moves on? Practical, not highly exceptional cases please... Some background: we have a few dozen developers working on projects using svn, with each project (or group of similar projects) in its own repo. We know how to apply release- and feature-branches so we don't run into problems very often (i.e. we've been there, but we've learned to overcome joel's problems of "one programmer causing trauma to the whole team" or "needing six developers for two weeks to reintegrate a branch"). We have release-branches that are very stable and only used to apply bugfixes. We have trunks that should be stable enough to be able to create a release within one week. And we have feature-branches that single developers or groups of developers can work on. Yes, they are deleted after reintegration so they don't clutter up the repository. ;) So I'm still trying to find the advantages of hg/git over svn. I'd love to get some hands-on experience, but there aren't any bigger projects we could move to hg/git yet, so I'm stuck with playing with small artifical projects that only contain a few made up files. And I'm looking for a few cases where you can feel the impressive power of hg/git, since so far I have often read about them but failed to find them myself.

    Read the article

  • Using Active Directory to authenticate users in a WWW facing website

    - by Basiclife
    Hi, I'm looking at starting a new web app which needs to be secure (if for no other reason than that we'll need PCI accreditation at some point). From previous experience working with PCI (on a domain), the preferred method is to use integrated windows authentication which is then passed all the way through the app to the database. This allows for better auditing as well as object-level permissions (ie an end user can't read the credit card table). There are advantages in that even if someone compromises the webserver, they won't be able to glean any additional information from the database. Also, the webserver isn't storing any database credentials (beyond perhaps a simple anonymous user with very few permissions) So, now I'm looking at the new web app which will be on the public internet. One suggestion is to have a Active Directory server and create windows accounts on the AD for each user of the site. These users will then be placed into the appropriate NT groups to decide which DB permissions they should have (and which pages they can access). ASP already provides the AD membership provider and role provider so this should be fairly simple to implement. There are a number of questions around this - Scalability, reliability, etc... and I was wondering if there is anyone out there with experience of this approach or, even better, some good reasons why to do it / not to do it. Any input appreciated Regards Basiclife

    Read the article

  • SQL GUID Vs Integer

    - by Dal
    Hi I have recently started a new job and noticed that all the SQL tables use the GUID data type for the primary key. In my previous job we used integers (Auto-Increment) for the primary key and it was a lot more easier to work with in my opinion. For example, say you had two related tables; Product and ProductType - I could easily cross check the 'ProductTypeID' column of both tables for a particular row to quickly map the data in my head because its easy to store the number (2,4,45 etc) as opposed to (E75B92A3-3299-4407-A913-C5CA196B3CAB). The extra frustration comes from me wanting to understand how the tables are related, sadly there is no Database diagram :( A lot of people say that GUID's are better because you can define the unique identifer in your C# code for example using NewID() without requiring SQL SERVER to do it - this also allows you to know provisionally what the ID will be.... but I've seen that it is possible to still retrieve the 'next auto-incremented integer' too. A DBA contractor reported that our queries could be up to 30% faster if we used the Integer type instead of GUIDS... Why does the GUID data type exist, what advantages does it really provide?... Even if its a choice by some professional there must be some good reasons as to why its implemented?

    Read the article

  • Which JavaScript framework for me?

    - by LeonixSolutions
    This is not to be a subjective question; nor is it intended to start a religious war. Which JavaScript framework for me? Until now, I haven't coded any JS at all (no biggy, it's just another language). I have been set in my ways and eschewed any client-side code, lest the user have JS turned off, or try to "just change this a little, to see what happens" - and then expect me to support it. So, until now it has all been server-side, with PHP and an ODBC compliant database. However, I am beginning to see advantages to client-side input validation and improved graphical experience for users which would help me to produce more professional web-based applications. I am looking for a framework which : doesn't have a steep learning curve is full-featured, although that does not mean that the one with the most features wins (remember the 80/20 rule) is mature an stable (even if still in development) integrates well with common IDEs if possible. I use NetBeans for PHP (and occasionally MS visual studio for C# (I seem to have drifted away from Eclipse)) allows me to develop web sites/apps for mobile devices support for Goggle charts (or other charting) would be a bonus has good AJAX/JSON support, but I imagine that they all do Taking that into consideration, is there a "right" framework for me, or does it not really matter? I looked briefly at JQuery and JQueryGui and liked what I saw, but I really don't have time, owing to deadlines, to try them all out and see which one suits me, much as I know that I ought to.

    Read the article

  • ASP.Net MVC vs ASP.Net for Complex workflows

    - by Grant Sutcliffe
    I have just become involved in migrating a series of complex workflows with InfoPath UIs to Web-based UIs. I am new to ASP.Net MVC but have started to evaluate it as the technology versus classic ASP.Net for the job. As is typical of most workflows, in each state there are a number of business rules that determine (a) who can view what content; (2) who can edit what content; (3) what the user action options might be (Edit; Reject; Approve), etc. In essence, there is a lot of logic that needs to be applied to each request before presenting the appropriate view. Being more experienced in ASP.Net, I know that presenting the form(s) as required can be easily achieved through code behind pages (enable / disable / hide fields). I have not seen how this can be achieved with ASP.Net MVC (but am realising that new thinking is required of me when working with MVC - ‘Give only the content on a particular View + limited user action options’). Therefore, if using ASP.Net MVC, it looks like I would need to create a lot of views. Much of the content in each view would be the same. Only field enabled status or buttons would differ in most instances for these views in each state. For example: Step01Initiate (‘Has Save’ button); Step01OriginatorView (has ‘Edit’ Button) ; Step01OriginatorEdit (has ‘Save’ button); Step01Review (has ‘Accept’ / ‘Reject’ buttons); Step01ReviewReject (for reviewer notes; has ‘Save’ / ‘Cancel’ buttons). With workflows of up to six states, this would result in a lot of views. I can see the advantages of choosing ASP.MVC (1) ‘thin’ Views in terms of content; and (2) with logic consolidation in Controllers and different Models. Am I thinking along the right lines in terms of applying the MVC – ‘plenty of views’; or is there a better way to achieve my goal (using ASP.Net MVC or classic ASP.Net)?

    Read the article

  • [Java] Nested methods vs "piped" methods, which is better?

    - by Michael Mao
    Hi: Since uni, I've programming in Java for 3 years, although I am not fully dedicated to this language, I have spent quite some time in it, nevertheless. I understand both ways, just curious which style do you prefer. public class Test{ public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(getAgent().getAgentName()); } private static Agent getAgent() { return new Agent(); }} class Agent{ private String getAgentName() { return "John Smith"; }} I am pretty happy with nested method calls such like the following public class Test{ public static void main(String[] args) { getAgentName(getAgent()); } private static void getAgentName(Agent agent) { System.out.println(agent.getName()); } private static Agent getAgent() { return new Agent(); }} class Agent { public String getName(){ return "John Smith"; }} They have identical output I saw "John Smith" twice. I wonder, if one way of doing this has better performance or other advantages over the other. Personally I prefer the latter, since for nested methods I can certainly tell which starts first, and which is after. The above code is but a sample, The code that I am working with now is much more complicated, a bit like a maze... So switching between the two styles often blows my head in no time.

    Read the article

  • Git force complete sync to master

    - by Jesse
    My workplace uses Subversion for source control so I have been playing around with git-svn for the advantages of my own branches, commit as often as I want without touching the main repo, etc. Since my git svn checkout is local, I have cloned it to a network share as well to act as a backup. My thinking is that if my desktop takes a dump I will at least have the repo on the network share to get changes that I have not had a chance to dcommit yet. My workflow is to work from the desktop, make changes, commit, etc. At the end of the day I want to update the repo on the network share with all of my current changes. I had setup the repo on the network share using git clone repo_on_my_desktop and then updating the repo on the network share with git pull origin master. The problem that I am running into is when I used do a git rebase to squish multiple commits prior to dcommitting to the main svn repository. When I do this, I get merge conflicts on the repo on the network share when I try to backup at night. Is there a way to simply sync entirely with the repository on my desktop without doing a new git clone each night?

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous event loop design and issues.

    - by Artyom
    Hello, I'm designing event loop for asynchronous socket IO using epoll/devpoll/kqueue/poll/select (including windows-select). I have two options of performing, IO operation: Non-blocking mode, poll on EAGAIN Set socket to non-blocking mode. Read/Write to socket. If operation succeeds, post completion notification to event loop. If I get EAGAIN, add socket to "select list" and poll socket. Polling mode: poll and then execute Add socket to select list and poll it. Wait for notification that it is readable writable read/write Post completion notification to event loop of sucseeds To me it looks like first would require less system calls when using in normal mode, especially for writing to socket (buffers are quite big). Also it looks like that it would be possible to reduce the overhead over number of "select" executions, especially it is nice when you do not have something that scales well as epoll/devpoll/kqueue. Questions: Are there any advantages of the second approach? Are there any portability issues with non-blocking operations on sockets/file descriptors over numerous operating systems: Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOSX, Windows. Notes: Please do not suggest using existing event-loop/socket-api implementations

    Read the article

  • Cross-Platform Language + GUI Toolkit for Prototyping Multimedia Applications

    - by msutherl
    I'm looking for a language + GUI toolkit for rapidly prototyping utility applications for multimedia installations. I've been working with Max/MSP/Jitter for many years, but I'd like to add a text-based language to my 'arsenal' for tasks apart from 'content production'. (When it comes to actual media synthesis, my choices are clear [SuperCollider + MSP for audio, Jitter + Quartz + openFrameworks for video]). I'm looking for something that maintains some of the advantages of Max, but is lower-level, faster, more cross-platfrom (Linux support), and text-based. Integration with powerful sound/video libraries is not a requirement. Some requirements: Cross-platform (at least OSX and Linux, Windows is a plus) Fast and easy cross-platform GUIs with no platform-specific modification GUI code separated from backend code as much as possible Good for interfacing with external serial devices (micro-controllers) Good network support (UDP/TCP) Good libraries for multi-media (video, sound, OSC) are a plus Asynchronous synchronous UNIX integration is a plus The options that come to mind: AS3/Flex (not a fan of AS3 or the idea of running in the Flash Player) openFrameworks (C++ framework, perhaps a bit too low level [looking for fast development time] and biased toward video work) Java w/ Processing libraries (like openFrameworks, just slower) Python + Qt (is Qt appropriate for rapid prototyping?) Python + Another GUI toolkit SuperCollider + Swing (yucky GUI development) Java w/ SWT Any other options? What do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • Yet another Haskell vs. Scala question

    - by Travis Brown
    I've been using Haskell for several months, and I love it—it's gradually become my tool of choice for everything from one-off file renaming scripts to larger XML processing programs. I'm definitely still a beginner, but I'm starting to feel comfortable with the language and the basics of the theory behind it. I'm a lowly graduate student in the humanities, so I'm not under a lot of institutional or administrative pressure to use specific tools for my work. It would be convenient for me in many ways, however, to switch to Scala (or Clojure). Most of the NLP and machine learning libraries that I work with on a daily basis (and that I've written in the past) are Java-based, and the primary project I'm working for uses a Java application server. I've been mostly disappointed by my initial interactions with Scala. Many aspects of the syntax (partial application, for example) still feel clunky to me compared to Haskell, and I miss libraries like Parsec and HXT and QuickCheck. I'm familiar with the advantages of the JVM platform, so practical questions like this one don't really help me. What I'm looking for is a motivational argument for moving to Scala. What does it do (that Haskell doesn't) that's really cool? What makes it fun or challenging or life-changing? Why should I get excited about writing it?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to do A/B testing by page rather than by individual?

    - by mojones
    Lets say I have a simple ecommerce site that sells 100 different t-shirt designs. I want to do some a/b testing to optimise my sales. Let's say I want to test two different "buy" buttons. Normally, I would use AB testing to randomly assign each visitor to see button A or button B (and try to ensure that that the user experience is consistent by storing that assignment in session, cookies etc). Would it be possible to take a different approach and instead, randomly assign each of my 100 designs to use button A or B, and measure the conversion rate as (number of sales of design n) / (pageviews of design n) This approach would seem to have some advantages; I would not have to worry about keeping the user experience consistent - a given page (e.g. www.example.com/viewdesign?id=6) would always return the same html. If I were to test different prices, it would be far less distressing to the user to see different prices for different designs than different prices for the same design on different computers. I also wonder whether it might be better for SEO - my suspicion is that Google would "prefer" that it always sees the same html when crawling a page. Obviously this approach would only be suitable for a limited number of sites; I was just wondering if anyone has tried it?

    Read the article

  • super light software development process

    - by Walty
    hi, For the development process I have involved so far, most have teams of SINGLE member, or occasionally two. We used python + django for the major development, the development process is actually very fast, and we do have code reviews, design pattern discussions, and constant refactoring. Though team size is small, I do think there are some development processes / best practices that could be enforced. For example, using svn would be definitely better than regular copy backup. I did read some articles & books about Agile, XP & continuous integration, I think they are nice, but still too heavy for this case (team of 1 or 2, and fast coding). For example, IMHO, with nice design pattern, and iterative development + refactoring, the TDD MIGHT be an overkill, or at least the overhead does not out-weight the advantages. And so is the pair programming. The automated testing is a nice idea, but it seems not technically feasible for every project. our current practices are: svn + milestone + code review I wonder if there are development processes / best practices specifically targeted on such super light teams? thanks.

    Read the article

  • Will Apple bundle the Mono Touch runtime with every iPhone?

    - by Zoran Simic
    It strikes me as a good idea for Apple to negotiate with Novell and bundle the Mono Touch runtime (only the runtime of course) into every iPhone and iPod Touch. Perhaps even make it a "one time install" that automatically gets downloaded from the App Store the first time one downloads an app build with Mono Touch, making every subsequent Mono Touch app much lighter to download (without the runtime). Doing so would be similar in a way to adding Bootcamp to OS X: it would make it easier for C# developers to join the party, but that wouldn't mean these developers will all stick to C#... What convinced me to buy a Mac is Bootcamp - I figured I could always install Windows if I didn't like OS X (and I liked the hardware, so no problem there). 6 months later, I'm using OS X full time... Would there be any technical issues in doing so? I see only advantages for all parties, not one disadvantage to anyone (except maybe for the few unfortunate Apple employees who would have to test the crap out of the Mono Touch runtime before bundling it): Novell wins because Mono Touch becomes much more viable (Mono Touch apps become much lighter all of the sudden) Developers win because now there's one more tool in the tool belt Many C# Developers would be very interested by this Apple wins because that would bring even more attention to the platform, more revenue in developer fees, more potential great apps, etc Users win because less space is used by different Apps having copies of the same runtime accumulating on their devices Would there be a major technical obstacle in bundling Mono Touch to iPhone OS? Edit: Changed the title from "Should" to "Will Apple bundle the runtime?", I think the consensus on predicting that means a lot to those considering going with Mono Touch.

    Read the article

  • Why do mozilla and webkit prepend -moz- and -webkit- to CSS3 rules?

    - by egarcia
    CSS3 rules bring lots of interesting features. Take border-radius, for example. The standard says that if you write this rule: div.rounded-corners { border-radius: 5px; } I should get a 5px border radius. But neither mozilla nor webkit implement this. However, they implement the same thing, with the same parameters, with a different name (-moz-border-radius and -webkit-border-radius, respectively). In order to satisfy as many browsers as possible, you end up with this: div.rounded-corners { border-radius: 5px; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; } I can see two obvious disadvantages: Copy-paste code. This has obvious risks that I will not discuss here. The W3C CSS validator will not validate these rules. At the same time, I don't see any obvious advantages. I believe that the people behind mozilla and webkit are more intelligent than myself. There must be some good reasons to have things structured this way. It's just that I can't see them. So, I must ask you people: why is this?

    Read the article

  • Displaying tree path of record in SQL Server 2005

    - by jskiles1
    An example of my tree table is: ([id] is an identity) [id], [parent_id], [path] 1, NULL, 1 2, 1, 1-2 3, 1, 1-3 4, 3, 1-3-4 My goal is to query quickly for multiple rows of this table and view the full path of the node from its root, through its superiors, down to itself. The ultimate question is, should I generate this path on inserts and maintain it in its own column or generate this path on query to save disk space? I guess it depends if this table is write heavy or read heavy. I've been contemplating several approaches to using the "path" characteristic of this parent/child relationship and I just can't seem to settle on one. This "path" is simply for display purposes and serves absolutely no purpose other than that. Here is what I have done to implement this "path." AFTER INSERT TRIGGER - requires passing a NULL path to the insert and updating the path for the record at the inserted rows identity INSTEAD OF INSERT TRIGGER - does not require insert to have NULL path passed, but does require the trigger to insert with a NULL path and updating the path for the record at SCOPE_IDENTITY() STORED PROCEDURE - requiring all inserts into this table to be done through the stored procedure implementing the trigger logic VIEW - requires building the path in the view 1 and 2 seem annoying if massive amounts of data are entered at once. 3 seems annoying because all inserts must go through the procedure in order to have a valid path populated. 1, 2, and 3 require maintaining a path column on the table. 4 removes all the limitations of the above but require the view to perform the path logic and requires use of the view if a path is to be displayed. I have successfully implemented all of the above approaches and I'm mainly looking for some advice. Am I way off the mark here or are any of the above acceptable? Each has it's advantages and disadvantages.

    Read the article

  • Is there a language with native pass-by-reference/pass-by-name semantics, which could be used in mod

    - by Bubba88
    Hi! This is a reopened question. I look for a language and supporting platform for it, where the language could have pass-by-reference or pass-by-name semantics by default. I know the history a little, that there were Algol, Fortran and there still is C++ which could make it possible; but, basically, what I look for is something more modern and where the mentioned value pass methodology is preferred and by default (implicitly assumed). I ask this question, because, to my mind, some of the advantages of pass-by-ref/name seem kind of obvious. For example when it is used in a standalone agent, where copyiong of values is not necessary (to some extent) and performance wouldn't be downgraded much in that case. So, I could employ it in e.g. rich client app or some game-style or standalone service-kind application. The main advantage to me is the clear separation between identity of a symbol, and its current value. I mean when there is no reduntant copying, you know that you're working with the exact symbol/path you have queried/received. And intristing boxing of values will not interfere with the actual logic of program. I know that there is C# ref keyword, but it's something not so intristic, though acceptable. Equally, I realize that pass-by-reference semantics could be simulated in virtually any language (Java as an instant example) and so on.. not sure about pass by name :) What would you recommend - create a something like DSL for such needs wherever it be appropriate; or use some languages that I already know? Maybe, there is something that I'm missing? Thank you!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >