Search Results

Search found 1201 results on 49 pages for 'anti aliasing'.

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 6/49 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Do you run anti-virus software?

    - by Paolo Bergantino
    Do you find the crippling effect that most anti virus software has on a computer's performance worth the "security" they provide? I've never been able to really tell myself its worth it, and have used my computer without "protection" for years without any problems. Jeff Atwood wrote about this a while back, taking a similar stance. So I'm looking for some discussion on the merits and downfalls of antivirus software, and whether you personally think its worth the hassle. One point I do think is valid is that I am probably okay with not running it because I know if something goes wrong I have the ability to make it right (most of the time) but I can't really recommend the same for family as they may not be able to...

    Read the article

  • Is this the Crudy anti pattern?

    - by miker169
    Currently I am creating a WCF service which has to connect to a DAL which, just connects to a database using ADO.net and stored procedures. The DAl writes its responses from the database to a datacontract which is passed over the wire to the client via the service. I was reading that this may possibly be the anti pattern 'CRudy Interface', but I wasn't sure as I am sharing the datacontract. If I am using an anti pattern, can anyone suggest a better pattern to use for the behavior I require? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to see "anti if" movement and its gaol?

    - by Vijay Shanker
    I have a developer for last 3 years, have been using if-else or if-else if statements a lot in my programing habit. And today, I found This link. One obvious sample i put here public void doSomthing(String target, String object){ //validate requests if(target != null && target.trim().length() < 1){ //invalid request; } //further logic } Now, I have seen this sort of check all over the places, libraries. So, I wanted to have a discussion about the worthiness of such a movement. Please let me know your views.

    Read the article

  • aliasing "git" ssh login to "gitolite"

    - by Randal Schwartz
    I'm installing gitolite from CentOS packages for my client. The package creates a gitolite user, which will be visible explicitly during a "git clone" operations. The client wants to use "git" and not "gitolite", in case we change to something more fancy later. I'm not very familiar with CentOS, so I don't want to try to build the package myself from source. I'm wondering if there's a way to do one of the following: Trick sshd into treating "git" as "gitolite". Somehow "alias" a new git username to be the same in all ways as the existing gitolite username (perhaps through some complex combinations of useradd). Rename the "gitolite" username to "git" without upsetting later yum update operations Something else that I hadn't thought of I'd appreciate detailed instructions or pointers.

    Read the article

  • DNS lookup aliasing of hostnames (not IP aliases), probably via dnsmasq

    - by intuited
    I'd like to be able to set up a host, say "eg", to be an alias to some server on the internet, say "example.example.com". I just need this functionality to be available from my local machine. I'm running dnsmasq on that machine, which is running ubuntu 9.10. Is there a way to configure dnsmasq or the resolver subsystem (including avahi) to resolve that alias hostname via the actual hostname, so that eg will resolve to the ip address of example.example.com?

    Read the article

  • Pyglet OpenGL drawing anti-aliasing

    - by Jared Forsyth
    I've been looking around for a way to anti-alias lines in OpenGL, but none of them seem to work... here's some example code: import pyglet from pyglet.gl import * window = pyglet.window.Window(resizable=True) @window.event def on_draw(): window.clear() pyglet.gl.glColor4f(1.0,0,0,1.0) glBlendFunc (GL_SRC_ALPHA, GL_ONE_MINUS_SRC_ALPHA) glEnable (GL_BLEND) glEnable (GL_LINE_SMOOTH); glHint (GL_LINE_SMOOTH_HINT, GL_DONT_CARE) glLineWidth (3) pyglet.graphics.draw(2, pyglet.gl.GL_LINES, ('v2i', (10, 15, 300, 305)) ) pyglet.app.run() Can anyone see what I am doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Alternative to "inheritance v composition??"

    - by Frank
    I have colleagues at work who claim that "Inheritance is an anti-pattern" and want to use composition systematically instead, except in (rare, according to them) cases where inheritance is really the best way to go. I want to suggest an alternative where we continue using inheritance, but it is strictly forbidden (enforced by code reviews) to use anything but public members of base classes in derived classes. For a case where we don't need to swap components of a class at runtime (static inheritance), would that be equivalent enough to composition? Or am I forgetting some other important aspect of composition?

    Read the article

  • Is there an antipattern to describe this method of coding?

    - by P.Brian.Mackey
    I have a codebase where the programmer tended to wrap things up in areas that don't make sense. For example, given an Error log we have you can log via ErrorLog.Log(ex, "friendly message"); He added various other means to accomplish the exact same task. E.G. SomeClass.Log(ex, "friendly message"); Which simply turns around and calls the first method. This adds levels of complexity with no added benefit. Is there an anti-pattern to describe this?

    Read the article

  • Alternative to "inheritance versus composition?" [closed]

    - by Frank
    Possible Duplicate: Where does this concept of “favor composition over inheritance” come from? I have colleagues at work who claim that "Inheritance is an anti-pattern" and want to use composition systematically instead, except in (rare, according to them) cases where inheritance is really the best way to go. I want to suggest an alternative where we continue using inheritance, but it is strictly forbidden (enforced by code reviews) to use anything but public members of base classes in derived classes. For a case where we don't need to swap components of a class at runtime (static inheritance), would that be equivalent enough to composition? Or am I forgetting some other important aspect of composition?

    Read the article

  • EAV - is it really bad in all scenarios?

    - by Giedrius
    I'm thinking to use EAV for some of the stuff in one of the projects, but all questions about it in stackoverflow end up to answers calling EAV an anti pattern. But I'm wondering, if is it that wrong in all cases? Let's say shop product entity, it has common features, like name, description, image, price, etc., that take part in logic many places and has (semi)unique features, like watch and beach ball would be described by completely different aspects. So I think EAV would fit for storing those (semi)unique features? All this is assuming, that for showing product list, it is enough info in product table (that means no EAV is involved) and just when showing one product/comparing up to 5 products/etc. data saved using EAV is used. I've seen such approach in Magento commerce and it is quite popular, so may be there are cases, when EAV is reasonable?

    Read the article

  • Global Import Aliasing in .NET

    - by Josh Stodola
    Using import aliasing in a single class, we can reference class library namespaces by assigning our own custom alias like this: Imports Db = Company.Lib.Data.Objects And then we are able to reference the classes inside of Company.Lib.Data.Objects by using the Db alias that we assigned. Is it possible to do this at the global level so that the alias is applied to the entire solution instead of the given file? Currently, we are working with web applications, so I was hoping we could add something to web.config, but I am also interested in whether or not this is possible with windows forms, console apps, and/or class libraries.

    Read the article

  • Global Import/using Aliasing in .NET

    - by Josh Stodola
    Using import aliasing in a single class, we can reference class library namespaces by assigning our own custom alias like this: ' VB Imports Db = Company.Lib.Data.Objects // C# using Db = Company.Lib.Data.Objects; And then we are able to reference the classes inside of Company.Lib.Data.Objects by using the Db alias that we assigned. Is it possible to do this at the global level so that the alias is applied to the entire solution instead of the given file? Currently, we are working with web applications, so I was hoping we could add something to web.config, but I am also interested in whether or not this is possible with windows forms, console apps, and/or class libraries.

    Read the article

  • Pointer aliasing- in C++0x

    - by DeadMG
    I'm thinking about (just as an idea) disjointed pointer aliasing in C++0x. I was thinking about seeing if it could be implemented similarly to const correctness- that is, enforced by the compiler. What would be the requirements for such a thing? As this is more of a thought experiment, I'm perfectly happy to look at solutions that destroy legacy code or redefine half the language and that kind of thing. What I'd really rather not do is have, say, restrict from C99 where the programmer just promises it. It should be enforced.

    Read the article

  • HMTL5 Anti Aliasing Browser Disable

    - by Tappa Tappa
    I am forced to consider writing a library to handle the fundamental basics of drawing lines, thick lines, circles, squares etc. of an HTML5 canvas because I can't disable a feature embedded in the browser rendering of the core canvas algorithms. Am I forced to build the HTML5 Canvas rendering process from the ground up? If I am, who's in with me to do this? Who wants to change the world? Imagine a simple drawing application written in HTML5... you draw a shape... a closed shape like a rudimentary circle, free hand, more like an onion than a circle (well, that's what mine would look like!)... then imagine selecting a paint bucket icon and clicking inside that shape you drew and expecting it to be filled with a color of your choice. Imagine your surprise as you selected "Paint Bucket" and clicked in the middle of your shape and it filled your shape with color... BUT, not quite... HANG ON... this isn't right!!! On the inside of the edge of the shape you drew is a blur between the background color and your fill color and the edge color... the fill seems to be flawed. You wanted a straight forward "Paint Bucket" / "Fill"... you wanted to draw a shape and then fill it with a color... no fuss.... fill the whole damned inside of your shape with the color you choose. Your web browser has decided that when you draw the lines to define your shape they will be anti-aliased. If you draw a black line for your shape... well, the browser will draw grey pixels along the edges, in places... to make it look like a "better" line. Yeah, a "better" line that **s up the paint / flood fill process. How much does is cost to pay off the browser developers to expose a property to disable their anti-aliasing rendering? Disabling would save milliseconds for their rendering engine, surely! Bah, I really don't want to have to build my own canvas rendering engine using Bresenham line rendering algorithm... WHAT CAN BE DONE... HOW CAN THIS BE CHANGED!!!??? Do I need to start a petition aimed at the WC3???? Will you include your name if you are interested??? UPDATED function DrawLine(objContext, FromX, FromY, ToX, ToY) { var dx = Math.abs(ToX - FromX); var dy = Math.abs(ToY - FromY); var sx = (FromX < ToX) ? 1 : -1; var sy = (FromY < ToY) ? 1 : -1; var err = dx - dy; var CurX, CurY; CurX = FromX; CurY = FromY; while (true) { objContext.fillRect(CurX, CurY, objContext.lineWidth, objContext.lineWidth); if ((CurX == ToX) && (CurY == ToY)) break; var e2 = 2 * err; if (e2 > -dy) { err -= dy; CurX += sx; } if (e2 < dx) { err += dx; CurY += sy; } } }

    Read the article

  • PDF Disable Anti-alias on Lines

    - by Travis
    I'm creating a dynamically generated PDF using FPDF. My PDF requires many exactly horizontal/vertical lines in a grid and when rendered they are anti-aliased and look very fuzzy and unacceptable to the client. I need to remove the anti-aliasing for these(or all) lines in the doc. I know this is possible because it's shown correctly in the adobe pdf specs itself http://www.adobe.com/devnet/acrobat/pdfs/PDF32000_2008.pdf (warning: big file) see the box in page 2 for how this should look. How would I duplicate the box shown on this page?

    Read the article

  • Problem with Validate Anti Forgery

    - by Mikael Egnér
    Hi! I have a problem regarding MVC Anti forgery token. When I do my authentication I have pseudo code like this: var user = userRepository.GetByEmail(email); System.Threading.Thread.CurrentPrincipal = HttpContext.Current.User = user; by doing so I'm able to get the current user in my code like this: var user = HttpContext.Current.User as EntityUser; This works fine until I add the [ValidateAntiForgeryToken] attribute to an action. When I add the attribute I get A required anti-forgery token was not supplied or was invalid. If I comment out this line: System.Threading.Thread.CurrentPrincipal = HttpContext.Current.User = user; The antiforgery validation works fine, but the I don't have my convenient way of getting my "EntityUser" from the HttpContext. Any ideas of how to work around this? Best regards Mikael

    Read the article

  • After installing Windows what should I do first? update or install antivirus?

    - by EApubs
    Normally, after reformating and installing Windows 7, I used to go online and install all the updates, install all the driver updates and then install the anti virus. Because long ago, when I installed the anti virus first, applying windows updates crashed the AV! So, I install it last. Specially 7 sp1 is critical right? But now im having doubts... Going online without an antivirus means I'm vulnerable! (I have a home router which have a small firewall but I'm not sure about it) So, whats the best thing to do? Install the anti virus first or install the updates first?

    Read the article

  • So Singletons are bad, then what?

    - by Bobby Tables
    There has been a lot of discussion lately about the problems with using (and overusing) Singletons. I've been one of those people earlier in my career too. I can see what the problem is now, and yet, there are still many cases where I can't see a nice alternative - and not many of the anti-Singleton discussions really provide one. Here is a real example from a major recent project I was involved in: The application was a thick client with many separate screens and components which uses huge amounts of data from a server state which isn't updated too often. This data was basically cached in a Singleton "manager" object - the dreaded "global state". The idea was to have this one place in the app which keeps the data stored and synced, and then any new screens that are opened can just query most of what they need from there, without making repetitive requests for various supporting data from the server. Constantly requesting to the server would take too much bandwidth - and I'm talking thousands of dollars extra Internet bills per week, so that was unacceptable. Is there any other approach that could be appropriate here than basically having this kind of global data manager cache object? This object doesn't officially have to be a "Singleton" of course, but it does conceptually make sense to be one. What is a nice clean alternative here?

    Read the article

  • What design patters are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Forms: Pattern or AntiPattern?

    - by Segfault
    I'm sure you've seen it. The database has a bunch of tables called Forms, Controls,FormsControls, ControlSets, Actions and the program that queries these tables has a dynamically generated user interface. It will read all the forms, load a home page that has links to them all, or embed them in some tabbed or paged home page, and for each of those forms it will read the various text boxes, check boxes, radio buttons, submit buttons, combo boxes, labels and whatnot from the controls and form-to-control join tables, lay those elements out according to the database and link all the controls to logic according to other rules in the database. To me, this is an anti-pattern. It actually make the application more difficult to maintain because the design of it is now spread out into multiple different systems. Also, the database is not source controlled. Sure, it may make one or two changes go more quickly, after you've analyzed the program anyway to understand how to change the data and as long as you don't stray from the sort of changes that were anticipated and accounted for, but that's often just not sustainable. What say you?

    Read the article

  • What design patterns are the worst or most narrowly defined?

    - by Akku
    For every programming project, Managers with past programming experience try to shine when they recommend some design patterns for your project. I like design patterns when they make sense or if you need a scalbale solution. I've used Proxies, Observers and Command patterns in a positive way for example, and do so every day. But I'm really hesitant to use say a Factory pattern if there's only one way to create an object, as a factory might make it all easier in the future, but complicates the code and is pure overhead. So, my question is in respect to my future career and my answer to manager types throwing random pattern-names around: Which design patterns did you use, that threw you back overall? Which are the worst design patterns, that you shouldn't have a look at if it's not that only single situation where it makes sense (read: which design patterns are very narrowly defined)? (It's like I was looking for the negative reviews of an overall good product of amazon to see what bugged people most in using design patterns). And I'm not talking about Anti-Patterns here, but about Patterns that are usually thought of as "good" patterns. Edit: As some answered, the problem is most often that patterns are not "bad" but "used wrong". If you know patterns, that are often misused or even difficult to use, they would also fit as an answer.

    Read the article

  • Code maintenance: keeping a bad pattern when extending new code for being consistent or not ?

    - by Guillaume
    I have to extend an existing module of a project. I don't like the way it has been done (lots of anti-pattern involved, like copy/pasted code). I don't want to perform a complete refactor. Should I: create new methods using existing convention, even if I feel it wrong, to avoid confusion for the next maintainer and being consistent with the code base? or try to use what I feel better even if it is introducing another pattern in the code ? Precison edited after first answers: The existing code is not a mess. It is easy to follow and understand. BUT it is introducing lots of boilerplate code that can be avoided with good design (resulting code might become harder to follow then). In my current case it's a good old JDBC (spring template inboard) DAO module, but I have already encounter this dilemma and I'm seeking for other dev feedback. I don't want to refactor because I don't have time. And even with time it will be hard to justify that a whole perfectly working module needs refactoring. Refactoring cost will be heavier than its benefits. Remember: code is not messy or over-complex. I can not extract few methods there and introduce an abstract class here. It is more a flaw in the design (result of extreme 'Keep It Stupid Simple' I think) So the question can also be asked like that: You, as developer, do you prefer to maintain easy stupid boring code OR to have some helpers that will do the stupid boring code at your place ? Downside of the last possibility being that you'll have to learn some stuff and maybe you will have to maintain the easy stupid boring code too until a full refactoring is done)

    Read the article

  • If an entity is composed, is it still a god object?

    - by Telastyn
    I am working on a system to configure hardware. Unfortunately, there is tons of variety in the hardware, which means there's a wide variety of capabilities and configurations depending on what specific hardware the software connects to. To deal with this, we're using a Component Based Entity design where the "hardware" class itself is a very thin container for components that are composed at runtime based on what capabilities/configuration are available. This works great, and the design itself has worked well elsewhere (particularly in games). The problem is that all this software does is configure the hardware. As such, almost all of the code is a component of the hardware instance. While the consumer only ever works against the strongly typed interfaces for the components, it could be argued that the class that represents an instance of the hardware is a God Object. If you want to do anything to/with the hardware, you query an interface and work with it. So, even if the components of an object are modular and decoupled well, is their container a God Object and the downsides associated with the anti-pattern?

    Read the article

  • Uncrackable anti-piracy protection/DRM even possible? [closed]

    - by some guy
    I hope that this is programming-related enough. You have probably heard about Ubisofts recent steps against piracy. (New DRM requires a constant connection to the Ubisoft server) Many people including me see this as intolerable because the only ones suffering from it at the end are the paying customers. Now to the actual question(s): Ubisoft justified this by calling this mechanism "Uncrackable, only playable by the paying customers". Is a so called uncrackable DRM even possible? You can reverse-engineer and modify everything, even if it takes long. Isn't Ubisoft already lying by calling something not crackable? I mean, hey - With the game you get all its content (textures, models, you know) and some anti-piracy mechanism hardcoded into it. How could that be "uncrackable"? You can just patch the unwanted mechanisms out ---- "Pirates" play the cracked game without problems and the paying customers are the idiots by having constant problems with the game and being unable to play it without a (working) internet connection. What are the points Ubisoft sees in this? If they are at least a bit intelligent and informed they know their anti-piracy protection won't last long. All they get is lower sales, angry customers and happy pirates and crackers.

    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 | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >