Search Results

Search found 720 results on 29 pages for 'conventions'.

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 6/29 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Finding the right name for an include that is to be executed before HTML output

    - by Pekka
    I am defining naming conventions for a simple plugin framework. For example: index.php - the main plugin file info.php - returns an array with plugin information install.php - self-explanatory can you think of an elegant, short-hand name for a PHP file that contains the code that is to be executed before any HTML is output? Do any examples from other frameworks come to your mind? What I have been thinking of: head.php - misleading, could be mixed up with HTML <head> before_output.php - clumsy, too long init.php - not exactly correct start.php - current favourite

    Read the article

  • python: naming a module that has a two-word name

    - by Jason S
    I'm trying to put together a really simple module with one .py source file in it, and have already run into a roadblock. I was going to call it scons-config but import scons-config doesn't work in Python. I found this SO question and looked at PEP8 style guide but am kind of bewildered, it doesn't talk about two-word-name conventions. What's the right way to deal with this? module name: SconsConfig? scons_config? sconsconfig? scons.config? name of the single .py file in it: scons-config.py? scons_config.py?

    Read the article

  • Is ASP.NET MVC completely (and exclusively) based on conventions?

    - by Mike Valeriano
    --TL;DR Is there a "Hello World!" ASP.NET MVC tutorial out there that doesn't rely on conventions and "stock" projects? Is it even possible to take advantage of the technology without reusing the default file structure, and start from a single "hello_world.asp" file or something (like in PHP)? Am I completely mistaken and I should be looking somewhere else, maybe this? I'm interested in the MVC framework, not Web Forms --Background I've played a bit with PHP in the past, just for fun, and now I'm back to it since web development became relevant for me once again. I'm no professional, but I try to gain as much knowledge and control over the technology I'm working with as possible. I'm using Visual Studio 2012 for C# - my "desktop" language of choice - and since I got the Professional Edition from Dreamspark, the Web Development Tools are available, including ASP.NET MVC 4. I won't touch Web Forms, but the MVC Framework got my attention because the MVC pattern is something I can really relate to, since it provides the control I want but... not quite. Learning PHP was easy - and right form the start I could just create a "hello_world.php" file and just do something like this for immediate results: <!-- file: hello_world.php --> <?php> echo "Hello World!"; <?> But I couldn't find a single ASP.NET (MVC) tutorial out there (I'll be sure to buy one of the upcoming MVC 4 books, only a month away or so) that would start like that. They all start with a sample project, building up knowledge from the basics and heavily using conventions as they go along. Which is fine, I suppose, but it's now the best way for me to learn things. Even the "Empty" project template for a new ASP.NET MVC 4 Application in VS2012 is not empty at all: several files and folders are created for you - much like a new C# desktop application project, but with C# I can in fact start from scratch, creating the project structure myself. It is not the case with PHP: I can choose from a plethora of different MVC frameworks I can just create my own framework I can just skip frameworks altogether, and toss random PHP along with my HTML on a single file and make it work I understand the framework needs to establish some rules, but what if I just want to create a single page website with some C# logic behind it? Do I really need to create a whole bloat of files and folders for the sake of convention? Also, please understand that I haven't gotten far on any of those tutorials mainly because of this reason, but, if that's the only way to do it, I'll go for it using one of the books I've mentioned before. This is my first contact with ASP.NET but from the few comparisons I've read, I believe I should stay the hell away from Web Forms. Thank you. (Please forgive the broken English - it is not my primary language.)

    Read the article

  • Inheritance mapping with Fluent NHibernate

    - by Berryl
    Below is an example of how I currently use automapping overrides to set up a my db representation of inheritance. It gets the job done functionality wise BUT by using some internal default values. For example, the discriminator column name winds up being the literal value 'discriminator' instead of "ActivityType, and the discriminator values are the fully qualified type of each class, instead of "ACCOUNT" and "PROJECT". I am guessing that this is a bug that doesn't get much attention now that conventions are preferred, and that the convention approach works correctly. I am looking for a sample of usage. Cheers, Berryl public class ActivityBaseMap : IAutoMappingOverride<ActivityBase> { public void Override(AutoMapping<ActivityBase> mapping) { ... mapping.DiscriminateSubClassesOnColumn("ActivityType"); } } public class AccountingActivityMap : SubclassMap<AccountingActivity> { public AccountingActivityMap() { ... DiscriminatorValue("ACCOUNT"); } } public class ProjectActivityMap : SubclassMap<ProjectActivity> { public ProjectActivityMap() { ... DiscriminatorValue("PROJECT"); } }

    Read the article

  • topic-comment naming of functions/methods

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

    Read the article

  • Events convention - I don't get it

    - by bobjink
    My class with an event: public class WindowModel { public delegate void WindowChangedHandler(object source, WindowTypeEventArgs e); public event WindowChangedHandler WindowChanged; public void GotoWindow(WindowType windowType) { this.currentWindow = windowType; this.WindowChanged.Invoke(this, new WindowTypeEventArgs(windowType)); } } Derived event class: public class WindowTypeEventArgs : EventArgs { public readonly WindowType windowType; public WindowTypeEventArgs(WindowType windowType) { this.windowType = windowType; } } Some other class that register it to the event: private void SetupEvents() { this.WindowModel.WindowChanged += this.ChangeWindow; } private void ChangeWindow(object sender, WindowTypeEventArgs e) { //change window } What have I gained from following the .Net convention? It would make more sense to have a contract like this public delegate void WindowChangedHandler(WindowType windowType); public event WindowChangedHandler WindowChanged; Doing it this way, I don't need to create a new class and is easier to understand. I am not coding a .Net library. This code is only going to be used in this project. I like conventions but am I right when I say that in this example it does not make sense or have i missunderstood something?

    Read the article

  • i18n - What are some naming-convention to use in creating language files?

    - by John Himmelman
    I'm developing a CMS that required i18n support. The translation strings are stored as an array in a language file (ie, en.php). Are there any naming conventions for this.. How can I improve on the sample language file below... // General 'general.title' => 'CMS - USA / English', 'general.save' => 'Save', 'general.choose_category' => 'Choose category', 'general.add' => 'Add', 'general.continue' => 'Continue', 'general.finish' => 'Finish', // Navigation 'nav.categories' => 'Categories', 'nav.products' => 'Products', 'nav.collections' => 'Collections', 'nav.styles' => 'Styles', 'nav.experts' => 'Experts', 'nav.shareyourstory' => 'Share Your Story', // Products 'cms.products' => 'Products', 'cms.add_product' => 'Add Product', // Categories 'cms.categories' => 'Categories', 'cms.add_category' => 'Add Category', // Collections 'cms.collections'=> 'Collections', 'cms.add_collections' => 'Add Collection', // Stylists 'cms.styles' => 'Stylists', 'cms.add_style' => 'Add Style', 'cms.add_a_style' => 'Add a style', // Share your story 'cms.share_your_story' => 'Share Your Story', // Styles 'cms.add_style' => 'Add Style',

    Read the article

  • What's the best name for a non-mutating "add" method on an immutable collection?

    - by Jon Skeet
    Sorry for the waffly title - if I could come up with a concise title, I wouldn't have to ask the question. Suppose I have an immutable list type. It has an operation Foo(x) which returns a new immutable list with the specified argument as an extra element at the end. So to build up a list of strings with values "Hello", "immutable", "world" you could write: var empty = new ImmutableList<string>(); var list1 = empty.Foo("Hello"); var list2 = list1.Foo("immutable"); var list3 = list2.Foo("word"); (This is C# code, and I'm most interested in a C# suggestion if you feel the language is important. It's not fundamentally a language question, but the idioms of the language may be important.) The important thing is that the existing lists are not altered by Foo - so empty.Count would still return 0. Another (more idiomatic) way of getting to the end result would be: var list = new ImmutableList<string>().Foo("Hello"); .Foo("immutable"); .Foo("word"); My question is: what's the best name for Foo? EDIT 3: As I reveal later on, the name of the type might not actually be ImmutableList<T>, which makes the position clear. Imagine instead that it's TestSuite and that it's immutable because the whole of the framework it's a part of is immutable... (End of edit 3) Options I've come up with so far: Add: common in .NET, but implies mutation of the original list Cons: I believe this is the normal name in functional languages, but meaningless to those without experience in such languages Plus: my favourite so far, it doesn't imply mutation to me. Apparently this is also used in Haskell but with slightly different expectations (a Haskell programmer might expect it to add two lists together rather than adding a single value to the other list). With: consistent with some other immutable conventions, but doesn't have quite the same "additionness" to it IMO. And: not very descriptive. Operator overload for + : I really don't like this much; I generally think operators should only be applied to lower level types. I'm willing to be persuaded though! The criteria I'm using for choosing are: Gives the correct impression of the result of the method call (i.e. that it's the original list with an extra element) Makes it as clear as possible that it doesn't mutate the existing list Sounds reasonable when chained together as in the second example above Please ask for more details if I'm not making myself clear enough... EDIT 1: Here's my reasoning for preferring Plus to Add. Consider these two lines of code: list.Add(foo); list.Plus(foo); In my view (and this is a personal thing) the latter is clearly buggy - it's like writing "x + 5;" as a statement on its own. The first line looks like it's okay, until you remember that it's immutable. In fact, the way that the plus operator on its own doesn't mutate its operands is another reason why Plus is my favourite. Without the slight ickiness of operator overloading, it still gives the same connotations, which include (for me) not mutating the operands (or method target in this case). EDIT 2: Reasons for not liking Add. Various answers are effectively: "Go with Add. That's what DateTime does, and String has Replace methods etc which don't make the immutability obvious." I agree - there's precedence here. However, I've seen plenty of people call DateTime.Add or String.Replace and expect mutation. There are loads of newsgroup questions (and probably SO ones if I dig around) which are answered by "You're ignoring the return value of String.Replace; strings are immutable, a new string gets returned." Now, I should reveal a subtlety to the question - the type might not actually be an immutable list, but a different immutable type. In particular, I'm working on a benchmarking framework where you add tests to a suite, and that creates a new suite. It might be obvious that: var list = new ImmutableList<string>(); list.Add("foo"); isn't going to accomplish anything, but it becomes a lot murkier when you change it to: var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>(); suite.Add(x => x.Length); That looks like it should be okay. Whereas this, to me, makes the mistake clearer: var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>(); suite.Plus(x => x.Length); That's just begging to be: var suite = new TestSuite<string, int>().Plus(x => x.Length); Ideally, I would like my users not to have to be told that the test suite is immutable. I want them to fall into the pit of success. This may not be possible, but I'd like to try. I apologise for over-simplifying the original question by talking only about an immutable list type. Not all collections are quite as self-descriptive as ImmutableList<T> :)

    Read the article

  • What strategy do you use for package naming in Java projects and why?

    - by Tim Visher
    I thought about this awhile ago and it recently resurfaced as my shop is doing its first real Java web app. As an intro, I see two main package naming strategies. (To be clear, I'm not referring to the whole 'domain.company.project' part of this, I'm talking about the package convention beneath that.) Anyway, the package naming conventions that I see are as follows: Functional: Naming your packages according to their function architecturally rather than their identity according to the business domain. Another term for this might be naming according to 'layer'. So, you'd have a *.ui package and a *.domain package and a *.orm package. Your packages are horizontal slices rather than vertical. This is much more common than logical naming. In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen or heard of a project that does this. This of course makes me leery (sort of like thinking that you've come up with a solution to an NP problem) as I'm not terribly smart and I assume everyone must have great reasons for doing it the way they do. On the other hand, I'm not opposed to people just missing the elephant in the room and I've never heard a an actual argument for doing package naming this way. It just seems to be the de facto standard. Logical: Naming your packages according to their business domain identity and putting every class that has to do with that vertical slice of functionality into that package. I have never seen or heard of this, as I mentioned before, but it makes a ton of sense to me. I tend to approach systems vertically rather than horizontally. I want to go in and develop the Order Processing system, not the data access layer. Obviously, there's a good chance that I'll touch the data access layer in the development of that system, but the point is that I don't think of it that way. What this means, of course, is that when I receive a change order or want to implement some new feature, it'd be nice to not have to go fishing around in a bunch of packages in order to find all the related classes. Instead, I just look in the X package because what I'm doing has to do with X. From a development standpoint, I see it as a major win to have your packages document your business domain rather than your architecture. I feel like the domain is almost always the part of the system that's harder to grok where as the system's architecture, especially at this point, is almost becoming mundane in its implementation. The fact that I can come to a system with this type of naming convention and instantly from the naming of the packages know that it deals with orders, customers, enterprises, products, etc. seems pretty darn handy. It seems like this would allow you to take much better advantage of Java's access modifiers. This allows you to much more cleanly define interfaces into subsystems rather than into layers of the system. So if you have an orders subsystem that you want to be transparently persistent, you could in theory just never let anything else know that it's persistent by not having to create public interfaces to its persistence classes in the dao layer and instead packaging the dao class in with only the classes it deals with. Obviously, if you wanted to expose this functionality, you could provide an interface for it or make it public. It just seems like you lose a lot of this by having a vertical slice of your system's features split across multiple packages. I suppose one disadvantage that I can see is that it does make ripping out layers a little bit more difficult. Instead of just deleting or renaming a package and then dropping a new one in place with an alternate technology, you have to go in and change all of the classes in all of the packages. However, I don't see this is a big deal. It may be from a lack of experience, but I have to imagine that the amount of times you swap out technologies pales in comparison to the amount of times you go in and edit vertical feature slices within your system. So I guess the question then would go out to you, how do you name your packages and why? Please understand that I don't necessarily think that I've stumbled onto the golden goose or something here. I'm pretty new to all this with mostly academic experience. However, I can't spot the holes in my reasoning so I'm hoping you all can so that I can move on. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • asp.net MVC DisplayTemplates and EditorTemplate naming convention

    - by Simon G
    Hi, I've got a couple of questions about the naming convention for the DisplayTemplates and EditorTemplates in MVC 2. If for example I have a customer object with a child list of account how do I: Create a display template for the list of accounts, what is the file called? When I'm doing a foreach( var c in Model.Accounts ) how do I call a display temple while in the foreach loop? When I do Html.DisplayFor( x => x ) inside the foreach x is the model and not in this case c. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Large Django application layout

    - by Rob Golding
    I am in a team developing a web-based university portal, which will be based on Django. We are still in the exploratory stages, and I am trying to find the best way to lay the project/development environment out. My initial idea is to develop the system as a Django "app", which contains sub-applications to separate out the different parts of the system. The reason I intended to make these "sub" applications is that they would not have any use outside the parent application whatsoever, so there would be little point in distributing them separately. We envisage that the portal will be installed in multiple locations (at different universities, for example) so the main app can be dropped into a number of Django projects to install it. We therefore have a different repository for each location's project, which is really just a settings.py file defining the installed portal applications, and a urls.py routing the urls to it. I have started to write some initial code, though, and I've come up against a problem. Some of the code that handles user authentication and profiles seems to be without a home. It doesn't conceptually belong in the portal application as it doesn't relate to the portal's functionality. It also, however, can't go in the project repository - as I would then be duplicating the code over each location's repository. If I then discovered a bug in this code, for example, I would have to manually replicate the fix over all of the location's project files. My idea for a fix is to make all the project repos a fork of a "master" location project, so that I can pull any changes from that master. I think this is messy though, and it means that I have one more repository to look after. I'm looking for a better way to achieve this project. Can anyone recommend a solution or a similar example I can take a look at? The problem seems to be that I am developing a Django project rather than just a Django application.

    Read the article

  • Common coding style for Python?

    - by Oscar Carballal
    Hi, I'm pretty new to Python, and I want to develop my first serious open source project. I want to ask what is the common coding style for python projects. I'll put also what I'm doing right now. 1.- What is the most widely used column width? (the eternal question) I'm currently sticking to 80 columns (and it's a pain!) 2.- What quotes to use? (I've seen everything and PEP 8 does not mention anything clear) I'm using single quotes for everything but docstrings, which use triple double quotes. 3.- Where do I put my imports? I'm putting them at file header in this order. import sys import -rest of python modules needed- import whatever import -rest of application modules- <code here> 4.- Can I use "import whatever.function as blah"? I saw some documents that disregard doing this. 5.- Tabs or spaces for indenting? Currently using 4 spaces tabs. 6.- Variable naming style? I'm using lowercase for everything but classes, which I put in camelCase. Anything you would recommend?

    Read the article

  • Enum Naming Convention - Plural

    - by o.k.w
    I'm asking this question despite having read similar but not exactly what I want at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/495051/c-naming-convention-for-enum-and-matching-property I found I have a tendency to name enums in plural and then 'use' them as singular, example: public enum EntityTypes { Type1, Type2 } public class SomeClass { /* some codes */ public EntityTypes EntityType {get; set;} } Of course it works and this is my style, but can anyone find potential problem with such convention? I do have an "ugly" naming with the word "Status" though: public enum OrderStatuses { Pending, Fulfilled, Error, Blah, Blah } public class SomeClass { /* some codes */ public OrderStatuses OrderStatus {get; set;} } Additional Info: Maybe my question wasn't clear enough. I often have to think hard when naming the variables of the my defined enum types. I know the best practice, but it doesn't help to ease my job of naming those variables. I can't possibly expose all my enum properties (say "Status") as "MyStatus". My question: Can anyone find potential problem with my convention described above? It is NOT about best practice. Question rephrase: Well, I guess I should ask the question this way: Can someone come out a good generic way of naming the enum type such that when used, the naming of the enum 'instance' will be pretty straightforward?

    Read the article

  • Naming booleans

    - by wrongusername
    If I only want to check if something is impossible or not (i.e., I will not be using something like if(possible)), should I name the boolean notPossible and use if(notPossible) or should I name it possible and use if(!possible) instead? And just to be sure, if I also have to check for whether it is possible, I would name the boolean possible and use if(possible) along with else, right?

    Read the article

  • Variable naming for arrays - C#

    - by David Neale
    What should I call a variable instantiated with some type of array? Is it okay to simply use a pluralised form of the type being held? IList<Person> people = new List<Person>(); or should I append something like 'List' to the name? IList<Person> personList = new List<Person>();

    Read the article

  • Hyphens or underscores in CSS and HTML identifiers?

    - by Török Gábor
    As both hyphen (-) and underscore (_) are valid characters in CSS and HTML identifiers, what are the advantages and disadvantages using one or the other? I prefer writing CSS class names with hyphens (e.g. field-text) and underscores for IDs (e.g. featured_content). Is there a best practice or it's only the matter of taste?

    Read the article

  • Use of @keyword in C# -- bad idea?

    - by Robert Fraser
    In my naming convention, I use _name for private member variables. I noticed that if I auto-generate a constructor with ReSharper, if the member is a keyword, it will generate an escaped keyword. For example: class IntrinsicFunctionCall { private Parameter[] _params; public IntrinsicFunctionCall(Parameter[] @params) { _params = @params; } } Is this generally considered bad practice or is it OK? It happens quite frequently with @params and @interface.

    Read the article

  • Consultant "branding" problem

    - by James Jones
    Where I work, we employ a consultant to do a considerable amount of work for us to hold us over until we can hire/train more staff. He has been working with us for quite a long time now, and he has always had this strange habit of leaving his initials on EVERYTHING he touches, as if its his sort of branding or advertising. And by everything, I mean: Database names Table names Variable names Web service names File names Server names etc... Is this a common practice among consultants? We politely asked if he could remove some of the branding, but he typically scoffs and quotes exorbitant time estimates to perform such 'silly' refactorings. I guess we could leave it alone, but it's really annoying to have to type out his name every time we reference something he made. Any recommendations on how to approach this problem? Edit: Our contract with him states that we "own" everything he makes for us.

    Read the article

  • What is the role/responsibility of a 'shell'?

    - by Rune
    Hi, I have been looking at the source code of the IronPython project and the Orchard CMS project. IronPython operates with a namespace called Microsoft.Scripting.Hosting.Shell (part of the DLR). The Orchard Project also operates with the concept of a 'shell' indirectly in various interfaces (IShellContainerFactory, IShellSettings). None of the projects mentioned above have elaborate documentation, so picking up the meaning of a type (class etc.) from its name is pretty valuable if you are trying to figure out the overall application structure/architecture by reading the source code. Now I am wondering: what do the authors of this source code have in mind when they refer to a 'shell'? When I hear the word 'shell', I think of something like a command line interpreter. This makes sense for IronPython, since it has an interactive interpreter. But to me, it doesn't make much sense with respect to a Web CMS. What should I think of, when I encounter something called a 'shell'? What is, in general terms, the role and responsibility of a 'shell'? Can that question even be answered? Is the meaning of 'shell' subjective (making the term useless)? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How to properly name record creation(insertion) datetime field ?

    - by alpav
    If I create a table with datetime default getdate() field that is intended to keep date&time of record insertion, which name is better to use for that field ? I like to use Created and I've seen people use DateCreated or CreateDate. Other possible candidates that I can think of are: CreatedDate, CreateTime, TimeCreated, CreateDateTime, DateTimeCreated, RecordCreated, Inserted, InsertedDate, ... From my point of view anything with Date inside name looks bad because it can be confused with date part in case if I have 2 fields: CreateDate,CreateTime, so I wonder if there are any specific recommendations/standards in that area based on real reasons, not just style, mood or consistency. Of course, if there are 100 existing tables and this is table 101 then I would use same naming convention as used in those 100 tables for the sake of consistency, but this question is about first table in first database in first server in first application.

    Read the article

  • Naming convention when casually referring to methods in Java

    - by polygenelubricants
    Is there a Java convention to refer to methods, static and otherwise, any specific one or the whole overload, etc? e.g. String.valueOf - referring to all overloads of static valueOf String.valueOf(char) - specific overload, formal parameter name omittable? String.split - looks like a static method, but actually an instance method Maybe aString.split is the convention? String#split - I've seen this HTML anchor form too, which I guess is javadoc-influenced Is there an authoritative recommendation on how to clearly refer to these things?

    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 >