Search Results

Search found 8692 results on 348 pages for 'patterns practices'.

Page 55/348 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

• What are other ideologies to establish relationships between distinct users besides followers/following and friends?

  - by user784637

  Websites like myspace and facebook establish relationships between distinct users using the "friending" ideology, where one user sends a request to be accepted by another user in order for them to have the mutual permission to do stuff like post messages on each others walls. Less restrictive than the "friending" ideology, Twitter and instagram use the followers/following ideology where you can subscribe to the tweets or posts of another user without their permission. Less restrictive than the "followers/following" ideology, email and calling someone on the phone allows you to directly contact anyone. Are there other ideologies that have been successfully implemented either in social networking sites or other real world constructs to establish relations between users?

  Read the article

• Best Creational Pattern for loggers in a multi-threaded system?

  - by Dipan Mehta

  This is a follow up question on my past questions : Concurrency pattern of logger in multithreaded application As suggested by others, I am putting this question separately. As the learning from the last question. In a multi-threaded environment, the logger should be made thread safe and probably asynchronous (where in messages are queued while a background thread does writing releasing the requesting object thread). The logger could be signleton or it can be a per-group logger which is a generalization of the above. Now, the question that arise is how does logger should be assigned to the object? There are two options I can think of: 1. Object requesting for the logger: Should each of the object call some global API such as get_logger()? Such an API returns "the" singleton or the group logger. However, I feel this involves assumption about the Application environment to implement the logger -which I think is some kind of coupling. If the same object needs to be used by other application - this new application also need to implement such a method. 2. Assign logger through some known API The other alternative approach is to create a kind of virtual class which is implemented by application based on App's own structure and assign the object sometime in the constructor. This is more generalized method. Unfortunately, when there are so many objects - and rather a tree of objects passing on the logger objects to each level is quite messy. My question is there a better way to do this? If you need to pick any one of the above, which approach is would you pick and why? Other questions remain open about how to configure them: How do objects' names or ID are assigned so that will be used for printing on the log messages (as the module names) How do these objects find the appropriate properties (such as log levels, and other such parameters) In the first approach, the central API needs to deal with all this varieties. In the second approach - there needs to be additional work. Hence, I want to understand from the real experience of people, as to how to write logger effectively in such an environment.

  Read the article

• Software development magazines [closed]

  - by Sebastian

  Ive spent the last hour or so browsing the web for professional development magazines. I am mostly interested in the java platform, agile methods, "programming in general" (tutorials on languages or whatever, "hot new stuff" etc) and software craftmanship. My best finding yet was pragpub and maybe MSDN magazine. I am willing to pay and have a Zinio account if anyone knows a magazine about programming that is distributed by them. Ive already browsed a couple of related threads here on stackexchange. ACM and IEEE does not seem relevant, as Im not interested in research articles. Maybe conferences like OOPSLA as somebody mentioned in another thread. PS. I prefer if they are in pdf or readable on kindle or a tablet. DS. BR Sebastian

  Read the article

• Relationship DAO, Servlet, JSP and POJO

  - by John Hendrik

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

  Read the article

• Is it a good pattern that no objects should know more than what it needs to know?

  - by Jim Thio

  I am implementing a viewController class. The view controller class got NSNotification when the Grabbing class start or finish updating. I have 2 choices. I can make the grabbing class to provide a public read only property so all other classes can know whether it is still uploading. Or I can let view Controller to listen to 2 different events. Start updating and finish updating events. The truth is the viewController do need to know whether the grabbing class is still updating or not at any other time. So I am thinking of creating 2 events would be a better way to go. Actually, what do you think?

  Read the article

• Convenient practice for where to place images?

  - by Baumr

  A lot of developers place all image files inside a central directory, for example: /i/img/ /images/ /img/ Isn't it better (e.g. content architecture, on-page SEO, code maintainability, filename maintainability, etc.) to place them inside the relevant directories in which they are used? For example: example.com/logo.jpg example.com/about/photo-of-me.jpg example.com/contact/map.png example.com/products/category1-square.png example.com/products/category2-square.png example.com/products/category1/product1-thumb.jpg example.com/products/category1/product2-thumb.jpg example.com/products/category1/product1/product1-large.jpg example.com/products/category1/product1/product2-large.jpg example.com/products/category1/product1/product3-large.jpg What is the best practice here regarding all possible considerations (for static non-CMS websites)? N.B. The names product1-large and product1-thumb are just examples in this context to illustrate what kind of images they are. It is advised to use descriptive filenames for SEO benefit.

  Read the article

• How to manage long running background threads and report progress with DDD

  - by Mr Happy

  Title says most of it. I have found surprising little information about this. I have a long running operation of which the user wants to see the progress (as in, item x of y processed). I also need to be able to pause and stop the operation. (Stopping doesn't rollback the items already processed.) The thing is, it's not that each item takes a long time to get processed, it's that that there are usually a lot of items. And what I've read about so far is that it's somewhat of an anti-pattern to put something like a queue in the DB. I currently don't have any messaging system in place, and I've never worked with one either. Another thing I read somewhere is that progress reporting is something that belongs in the application layer, but it didn't go into the details. So having said all this, what I have in mind is the following. User request with list of items enters the application layer. Application layer gets some information from the domain needed to process the items. Application layer passes the items and the information off to some domain service (should the implementation of this service belong in the infrastructure layer?) This service spins up a worker thread with callbacks for both progress reporting and pausing/stopping it. This worker thread will process each item in it's own UoW. This means the domain information from earlier needs to be stored in some DTO. Since nothing is really persisted, the service should be singleton and thread safe Whenever a user requests a progress report or wants to pause/stop the operation, the application layer will ask the service. Would this be a correct solution? Or am I at least on the right track with this? Especially the singleton and thread safe part makes the whole thing feel icky.

  Read the article

• What are some reasonable stylistic limits on type inference?

  - by Jon Purdy

  C++0x adds pretty darn comprehensive type inference support. I'm sorely tempted to use it everywhere possible to avoid undue repetition, but I'm wondering if removing explicit type information all over the place is such a good idea. Consider this rather contrived example: Foo.h: #include <set> class Foo { private: static std::set<Foo*> instances; public: Foo(); ~Foo(); // What does it return? Who cares! Just forward it! static decltype(instances.begin()) begin() { return instances.begin(); } static decltype(instances.end()) end() { return instances.end(); } }; Foo.cpp: #include <Foo.h> #include <Bar.h> // The type need only be specified in one location! // But I do have to open the header to find out what it actually is. decltype(Foo::instances) Foo::instances; Foo() { // What is the type of x? auto x = Bar::get_something(); // What does do_something() return? auto y = x.do_something(*this); // Well, it's convertible to bool somehow... if (!y) throw "a constant, old school"; instances.insert(this); } ~Foo() { instances.erase(this); } Would you say this is reasonable, or is it completely ridiculous? After all, especially if you're used to developing in a dynamic language, you don't really need to care all that much about the types of things, and can trust that the compiler will catch any egregious abuses of the type system. But for those of you that rely on editor support for method signatures, you're out of luck, so using this style in a library interface is probably really bad practice. I find that writing things with all possible types implicit actually makes my code a lot easier for me to follow, because it removes nearly all of the usual clutter of C++. Your mileage may, of course, vary, and that's what I'm interested in hearing about. What are the specific advantages and disadvantages to radical use of type inference?

  Read the article

• How to tell your boss that his programming style is really bad?

  - by Roflcoptr

  I'm a student and in my spare time I'm working for a big enterprise as Java developer. The job is good, but the problem is, my boss is writing very strange code. I don't want to complain, but some issues are in my opinion really strange. For example: he doesn't know any booleans. All boolean conditions are Strings called "YesOrNo" and then in the condition he uses if (YesOrNo == "Yes") there are a lot of very strange characters in method names and variables like é õ ô or è all loops are infinite loops in the style of for(;;). Then at the end of the loop the condition is tested and if the conditions is fulfilled break; is called. I don't now if I should tell him that I think this isn't a good practice, since he is my boss and decides how and what to do. On the other hand some of this examples are really very weird. Any hints how to cope with? And is this only me who thinks that's bad style?

  Read the article

• What is the proper name for this design pattern in Python?

  - by James

  In Python, is the proper name for the PersonXXX class below PersonProxy, PersonInterface, etc? import rest class PersonXXX(object): def __init__(self,db_url): self.resource = rest.Resource(db_url) def create(self,person): self.resource.post(person.data()) def get(self): pass def update(self): pass def delete(self): pass class Person(object): def __init__(self,name, age): self.name = name self.age = age def data(self): return dict(name=self.name,age=self.age)

  Read the article

• Designing web-based plugin systems correctly so they don't waste as many resources?

  - by Xeoncross

  Many CMS systems which rely on third parties for much of their code often build "plugin" or "hooks" systems to make it easy for developers to modify the codebase's actions without editing the core files. This usually means an Observer or Event design pattern. However, when you look at systems like wordpress you see that on every page they load some kind of bootstrap file from each of the plugin's folders to see if that plugin will need to run that request. Its this poor design that causes systems like wordpress to spend many extra MB's of memory loading and parsing unneeded items each page. Are there alternative ways to do this? I'm looking for ideas in building my own. For example, Is there a way to load all this once and then cache the results so that your system knows how to lazy-load plugins? In other words, the system loads a configuration file that specifies all the events that plugin wishes to tie into and then saves it for future requests? If that also performs poorly, then perhaps there is a special file-structure that could be used to make educated guesses about when certain plugins are unneeded to fullfil the request. Any ideas? If anyone wants an example of the "plugin" concept you can find one here.

  Read the article

• Are there any examples of a temporal field/object updater?

  - by Bryan Agee

  The system in question has numerous examples of temporal objects and fields--ones which are a certain variable at a certain point in time. An example of this would be someone's rate of pay--there are different answers depending on when you ask and what the constraints might be; eg, can there ever be more than one of a certain temporal object concurrently, etc. Ideally, there would be an object that handles those constraints when a new state/stateful object is introduced; when a new value is set, it would prevent creating negative ranges and overlaps. Martin Fowler has written some great material on this (such as this description of Temporal Objects) , but what I've found of it tends to be entirely theoretic, with no concrete implementations. PHP is the target language, but examples in any language would be most helpful.

  Read the article

• How do you track bugs in your personal projects?

  - by bedwyr

  I'm trying to decide if I need to reassess my defect-tracking process for my home-grown projects. For the last several years, I really just track defects using TODO tags in the code, and keeping track of them in a specific view (I use Eclipse, which has a decent tagging system). Unfortunately, I'm starting to wonder if this system is unsustainable. The defects I find are typically associated with a snippet of code I'm working on; bugs which are not immediately understood tend to be forgotten, or ignored. I wrote an application for my wife which has had a severe defect for almost 9 months, and I keep forgetting to fix it. What mechanism do you use to track defects in your personal projects? Do you have a specific system, or a process for prioritizing and managing them?

  Read the article

• Started wrong with a project. Should I start over?

  - by solidsnake

  I'm a beginner web developer (one year of experience). A couple of weeks after graduating, I got offered a job to build a web application for a company whose owner is not much of a tech guy. He recruited me to avoid theft of his idea, the high cost of development charged by a service company, and to have someone young he can trust onboard to maintain the project for the long run (I came to these conclusions by myself long after being hired). Cocky as I was back then, with a diploma in computer science, I accepted the offer thinking I can build anything. I was calling the shots. After some research I settled on PHP, and started with plain PHP, no objects, just ugly procedural code. Two months later, everything was getting messy, and it was hard to make any progress. The web application is huge. So I decided to check out an MVC framework that would make my life easier. That's where I stumbled upon the cool kid in the PHP community: Laravel. I loved it, it was easy to learn, and I started coding right away. My code looked cleaner, more organized. It looked very good. But again the web application was huge. The company was pressuring me to deliver the first version, which they wanted to deploy, obviously, and start seeking customers. Because Laravel was fun to work with, it made me remember why I chose this industry in the first place - something I forgot while stuck in the shitty education system. So I started working on small projects at night, reading about methodologies and best practice. I revisited OOP, moved on to object-oriented design and analysis, and read Uncle Bob's book Clean Code. This helped me realize that I really knew nothing. I did not know how to build software THE RIGHT WAY. But at this point it was too late, and now I'm almost done. My code is not clean at all, just spaghetti code, a real pain to fix a bug, all the logic is in the controllers, and there is little object oriented design. I'm having this persistent thought that I have to rewrite the whole project. However, I can't do it... They keep asking when is it going to be all done. I can not imagine this code deployed on a server. Plus I still know nothing about code efficiency and the web application's performance. On one hand, the company is waiting for the product and can not wait anymore. On the other hand I can't see myself going any further with the actual code. I could finish up, wrap it up and deploy, but god only knows what might happen when people start using it. What do you think I should do?

  Read the article

• Relative encapsulation design

  - by taher1992

  Let's say I am doing a 2D application with the following design: There is the Level object that manages the world, and there are world objects which are entities inside the Level object. A world object has a location and velocity, as well as size and a texture. However, a world object only exposes get properties. The set properties are private (or protected) and are only available to inherited classes. But of course, Level is responsible for these world objects, and must somehow be able to manipulate at least some of its private setters. But as of now, Level has no access, meaning world objects must change its private setters to public (violating encapsulation). How to tackle this problem? Should I just make everything public? Currently what I'm doing is having a inner class inside game object that does the set work. So when Level needs to update an objects location it goes something like this: void ChangeObject(GameObject targetObject, int newX, int newY){ // targetObject.SetX and targetObject.SetY cannot be set directly var setter = new GameObject.Setter(targetObject); setter.SetX(newX); setter.SetY(newY); } This code feels like overkill, but it doesn't feel right to have everything public so that anything can change an objects location for example.

  Read the article

• Dependency injection and IOC containers in a closed project

  - by Puckl

  Does it make sense to assemble my project with dependency injection containers if I am the only one who will use the code of that project? The question came up when I read this IOC Article http://martinfowler.com/articles/injection.html The justification for using dependency injection in this article is that friends can reuse a class, and replace depending classes with their own classes because they get injected and not instantiated in the class. I would only use it to inject objects where they are needed instead of passing them through layers to their target. (Which is not so bad I learned here: Is it bad practice to pass instances through several layers?) (Maybe I will reuse parts of the project, who knows, but I don´t know if that is a good justification)

  Read the article

• Rails: Law of Demeter Confusion

  - by user2158382

  I am reading a book called Rails AntiPatterns and they talk about using delegation to to avoid breaking the Law of Demeter. Here is their prime example: They believe that calling something like this in the controller is bad (and I agree) @street = @invoice.customer.address.street Their proposed solution is to do the following: class Customer has_one :address belongs_to :invoice def street address.street end end class Invoice has_one :customer def customer_street customer.street end end @street = @invoice.customer_street They are stating that since you only use one dot, you are not breaking the Law of Demeter here. I think this is incorrect, because you are still going through customer to go through address to get the invoice's street. I primarily got this idea from a blog post I read: http://www.dan-manges.com/blog/37 In the blog post the prime example is class Wallet attr_accessor :cash end class Customer has_one :wallet # attribute delegation def cash @wallet.cash end end class Paperboy def collect_money(customer, due_amount) if customer.cash < due_ammount raise InsufficientFundsError else customer.cash -= due_amount @collected_amount += due_amount end end end The blog post states that although there is only one dot customer.cash instead of customer.wallet.cash, this code still violates the Law of Demeter. Now in the Paperboy collect_money method, we don't have two dots, we just have one in "customer.cash". Has this delegation solved our problem? Not at all. If we look at the behavior, a paperboy is still reaching directly into a customer's wallet to get cash out. EDIT I completely understand and agree that this is still a violation and I need to create a method in Wallet called withdraw that handles the payment for me and that I should call that method inside the Customer class. What I don't get is that according to this process, my first example still violates the Law of Demeter because Invoice is still reaching directly into Customer to get the street. Can somebody help me clear the confusion. I have been searching for the past 2 days trying to let this topic sink in, but it is still confusing.

  Read the article

• Why do I need two Instances in Windows Azure?

  - by BuckWoody

  Windows Azure as a Platform as a Service (PaaS) means that there are various components you can use in it to solve a problem: Compute “Roles” - Computers running an OS and optionally IIS - you can have more than one "Instance" of a given Role Storage - Blobs, Tables and Queues for Storage Other Services - Things like the Service Bus, Azure Connection Services, SQL Azure and Caching It’s important to understand that some of these services are Stateless and others maintain State. Stateless means (at least in this case) that a system might disappear from one physical location and appear elsewhere. You can think of this as a cashier at the front of a store. If you’re in line, a cashier might take his break, and another person might replace him. As long as the order proceeds, you as the customer aren’t really affected except for the few seconds it takes to change them out. The cashier function in this example is stateless. The Compute Role Instances in Windows Azure are Stateless. To upgrade hardware, because of a fault or many other reasons, a Compute Role's Instance might stop on one physical server, and another will pick it up. This is done through the controlling fabric that Windows Azure uses to manage the systems. It’s important to note that storage in Azure does maintain State. Your data will not simply disappear - it is maintained - in fact, it’s maintained three times in a single datacenter and all those copies are replicated to another for safety. Going back to our example, storage is similar to the cash register itself. Even though a cashier leaves, the record of your payment is maintained. So if a Compute Role Instance can disappear and re-appear, the things running on that first Instance would stop working. If you wrote your code in a Stateless way, then another Role Instance simply re-starts that transaction and keeps working, just like the other cashier in the example. But if you only have one Instance of a Role, then when the Role Instance is re-started, or when you need to upgrade your own code, you can face downtime, since there’s only one. That means you should deploy at least two of each Role Instance not only for scale to handle load, but so that the first “cashier” has someone to replace them when they disappear. It’s not just a good idea - to gain the Service Level Agreement (SLA) for our uptime in Azure it’s a requirement. We point this out right in the Management Portal when you deploy the application: (Click to enlarge) When you deploy a Role Instance you can also set the “Upgrade Domain”. Placing Roles on separate Upgrade Domains means that you have a continuous service whenever you upgrade (more on upgrades in another post) - the process looks like this for two Roles. This example covers the scenario for upgrade, so you have four roles total - One Web and one Worker running the "older" code, and one of each running the new code. In all those Roles you want at least two instances, and this example shows that you're covered for High Availability and upgrade paths: The take-away is this - always plan for forward-facing Roles to have at least two copies. For Worker Roles that do background processing, there are ways to architect around this number, but it does affect the SLA if you have only one.

  Read the article

• Who should control navigation in an MVVM application?

  - by SonOfPirate

  Example #1: I have a view displayed in my MVVM application (let's use Silverlight for the purposes of the discussion) and I click on a button that should take me to a new page. Example #2: That same view has another button that, when clicked, should open up a details view in a child window (dialog). We know that there will be Command objects exposed by our ViewModel bound to the buttons with methods that respond to the user's click. But, what then? How do we complete the action? Even if we use a so-called NavigationService, what are we telling it? To be more specific, in a traditional View-first model (like URL-based navigation schemes such as on the web or the SL built-in navigation framework) the Command objects would have to know what View to display next. That seems to cross the line when it comes to the separation of concerns promoted by the pattern. On the other hand, if the button wasn't wired to a Command object and behaved like a hyperlink, the navigation rules could be defined in the markup. But do we want the Views to control application flow and isn't navigation just another type of business logic? (I can say yes in some cases and no in others.) To me, the utopian implementation of the MVVM pattern (and I've heard others profess this) would be to have the ViewModel wired in such a way that the application can run headless (i.e. no Views). This provides the most surface area for code-based testing and makes the Views a true skin on the application. And my ViewModel shouldn't care if it displayed in the main window, a floating panel or a child window, should it? According to this apprach, it is up to some other mechanism at runtime to 'bind' what View should be displayed for each ViewModel. But what if we want to share a View with multiple ViewModels or vice versa? So given the need to manage the View-ViewModel relationship so we know what to display when along with the need to navigate between views, including displaying child windows / dialogs, how do we truly accomplish this in the MVVM pattern?

  Read the article

• Is loose coupling w/o use cases an anti-pattern?

  - by dsimcha

  Loose coupling is, to some developers, the holy grail of well-engineered software. It's certainly a good thing when it makes code more flexible in the face of changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future, or avoids code duplication. On the other hand, efforts to loosely couple components increase the amount of indirection in a program, thus increasing its complexity, often making it more difficult to understand and often making it less efficient. Do you consider a focus on loose coupling without any use cases for the loose coupling (such as avoiding code duplication or planning for changes that are likely to occur in the foreseeable future) to be an anti-pattern? Can loose coupling fall under the umbrella of YAGNI?

  Read the article

• Could someone break this nasty habit of mine please?

  - by MimiEAM

  I recently graduated in cs and was mostly unsatisfied since I realized that I received only a basic theoretical approach in a wide range of subjects (which is what college is supposed to do but still...) . Anyway I took the habit of spending a lot of time looking for implementations of concepts and upon finding those I will used them as guides to writing my own implementation of those concepts just for fun. But now I feel like the only way I can fully understand a new concept is by trying to implement from scratch no matter how unoptimized the result may be. Anyway this behavior lead me to choose by default the hard way, that is time consuming instead of using a nicely written library until I hit my head again a huge wall and then try to find a library that works for my purpose.... Does anyone else do that and why? It seems so weird why would anyone (including me) do that ? Is it a bad practice ? and if so how can i stop doing that ?

  Read the article

• Database Maintenance Scripting Done Right

  - by KKline

  I first wrote about useful database maintenance scripts on my SQLBlog account way back in 2008. Hmmm - now that I think about it, I first wrote about my own useful database maintenance scripts in a journal called SQL Server Professional back in the mid-1990's on SQL Server v6.5 or some such. But I digress... Anyway, I pointed out a couple useful sites where you could get some good scripts that would take care of preventative maintenance on your SQL Server, such as index defragmentation, updating...(read more)

  Read the article

• Are XML Comments Necessary Documentation?

  - by Bob Horn

  I used to be a fan of requiring XML comments for documentation. I've since changed my mind for two main reasons: Like good code, methods should be self-explanatory. In practice, most XML comments are useless noise that provide no additional value. Many times we simply use GhostDoc to generate generic comments, and this is what I mean by useless noise: /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the unit of measure. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The unit of measure. /// </value> public string UnitOfMeasure { get; set; } To me, that's obvious. Having said that, if there were special instructions to include, then we should absolutely use XML comments. I like this excerpt from this article: Sometimes, you will need to write comments. But, it should be the exception not the rule. Comments should only be used when they are expressing something that cannot be expressed in code. If you want to write elegant code, strive to eliminate comments and instead write self-documenting code. Am I wrong to think we should only be using XML comments when the code isn't enough to explain itself on its own? I believe this is a good example where XML comments make pretty code look ugly. It takes a class like this... public class RawMaterialLabel : EntityBase { public long Id { get; set; } public string ManufacturerId { get; set; } public string PartNumber { get; set; } public string Quantity { get; set; } public string UnitOfMeasure { get; set; } public string LotNumber { get; set; } public string SublotNumber { get; set; } public int LabelSerialNumber { get; set; } public string PurchaseOrderNumber { get; set; } public string PurchaseOrderLineNumber { get; set; } public DateTime ManufacturingDate { get; set; } public string LastModifiedUser { get; set; } public DateTime LastModifiedTime { get; set; } public Binary VersionNumber { get; set; } public ICollection<LotEquipmentScan> LotEquipmentScans { get; private set; } } ... And turns it into this: /// <summary> /// Container for properties of a raw material label /// </summary> public class RawMaterialLabel : EntityBase { /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the id. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The id. /// </value> public long Id { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the manufacturer id. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The manufacturer id. /// </value> public string ManufacturerId { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the part number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The part number. /// </value> public string PartNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the quantity. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The quantity. /// </value> public string Quantity { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the unit of measure. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The unit of measure. /// </value> public string UnitOfMeasure { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the lot number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The lot number. /// </value> public string LotNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the sublot number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The sublot number. /// </value> public string SublotNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the label serial number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The label serial number. /// </value> public int LabelSerialNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the purchase order number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The purchase order number. /// </value> public string PurchaseOrderNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the purchase order line number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The purchase order line number. /// </value> public string PurchaseOrderLineNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the manufacturing date. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The manufacturing date. /// </value> public DateTime ManufacturingDate { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the last modified user. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The last modified user. /// </value> public string LastModifiedUser { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the last modified time. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The last modified time. /// </value> public DateTime LastModifiedTime { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets or sets the version number. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The version number. /// </value> public Binary VersionNumber { get; set; } /// <summary> /// Gets the lot equipment scans. /// </summary> /// <value> /// The lot equipment scans. /// </value> public ICollection<LotEquipmentScan> LotEquipmentScans { get; private set; } }

  Read the article

• What are the problems with a relatively large common library?

  - by Sam Pearson

  As long as the code in the base library is as loosely coupled as splitting it up into separate libraries, what's the problem? In general, having a lot of assemblies composing a .NET solution is painful. Plus, when code in one solution needs to be shared, it can just be added to the common library, rather than deciding which common library it should be added to or creating yet another library. edit: the question comes to me after using Smalltalk for a bit, where all the code is available to use, all the time.

  Read the article

• I'm trying to understand hash tables - can someone explain it to me - clearly?

  - by Stevo

  I want to understand the correct use and implementation of hash tables in php (sorry). I read somewhere that an in-experienced programmer created a hash table and then iterated through it. Now, I understand why that is wrong but I haven't quite got the full knowledge to know if my understanding is correct (if you know what I mean). So could someone explain to me how to implement a hash table in php (presumably an associative array) and perhaps more importantly, how to access the values 'with a hash' and what that actually means?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >