Search Results

Search found 5709 results on 229 pages for 'persistence unit'.

Page 6/229 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Creating database desktop application with data manipulation in Netbeans using Java Persistence

    - by Lulu
    It's my first time to use Persistence in developing a Java program because I usually connect via JDBC. I read that for large amounts of data, it is best to use persistence. I tried playing with the CRUD example of Netbeans. It's not very helpful thought because it only connects to the DB and allows addition and deletion of records. I need something that will allow me to manipulate the data like if the value from column C1 of table T1 is such, it will retrieve data from table t2. In short, I need to apply conditions before knowing what to retrieve exactly. The example in CRUD example already has a specific table to retrieve and only acts like a database manager. How is it possible to retrieve a specific item first then from this, will determine the next steps to be done. I'm also using embedded JavaDB/Derby as my database (also my first time to use because I usually use remote mysql)

    Read the article

  • Where do you put your unit test?

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewers?

    Read the article

  • organizing unit test

    - by soulmerge
    I have found several conventions to housekeeping unit tests in a project and I'm not sure which approach would be suitable for our next PHP project. I am trying to find the best convention to encourage easy development and accessibility of the tests when reviewing the source code. I would be very interested in your experience/opinion regarding each: One folder for productive code, another for unit tests: This separates unit tests from the logic files of the project. This separation of concerns is as much a nuisance as it is an advantage: Someone looking into the source code of the project will - so I suppose - either browse the implementation or the unit tests (or more commonly: the implementation only). The advantage of unit tests being another viewpoint to your classes is lost - those two viewpoints are just too far apart IMO. Annotated test methods: Any modern unit testing framework I know allows developers to create dedicated test methods, annotating them (@test) and embedding them in the project code. The big drawback I see here is that the project files get cluttered. Even if these methods are separated using a comment header (like UNIT TESTS below this line) it just bloats the class unnecessarily. Test files within the same folders as the implementation files: Our file naming convention dictates that PHP files containing classes (one class per file) should end with .class.php. I could imagine that putting unit tests regarding a class file into another one ending on .test.php would render the tests much more present to other developers without tainting the class. Although it bloats the project folders, instead of the implementation files, this is my favorite so far, but I have my doubts: I would think others have come up with this already, and discarded this option for some reason (i.e. I have not seen a java project with the files Foo.java and FooTest.java within the same folder.) Maybe it's because java developers make heavier use of IDEs that allow them easier access to the tests, whereas in PHP no big editors have emerged (like eclipse for java) - many devs I know use vim/emacs or similar editors with little support for PHP development per se. What is your experience with any of these unit test placements? Do you have another convention I haven't listed here? Or am I just overrating unit test accessibility to reviewing developers?

    Read the article

  • TDD vs. Unit testing

    - by Walter
    My company is fairly new to unit testing our code. I've been reading about TDD and unit testing for some time and am convinced of their value. I've attempted to convince our team that TDD is worth the effort of learning and changing our mindsets on how we program but it is a struggle. Which brings me to my question(s). There are many in the TDD community who are very religious about writing the test and then the code (and I'm with them), but for a team that is struggling with TDD does a compromise still bring added benefits? I can probably succeed in getting the team to write unit tests once the code is written (perhaps as a requirement for checking in code) and my assumption is that there is still value in writing those unit tests. What's the best way to bring a struggling team into TDD? And failing that is it still worth writing unit tests even if it is after the code is written? EDIT What I've taken away from this is that it is important for us to start unit testing, somewhere in the coding process. For those in the team who pickup the concept, start to move more towards TDD and testing first. Thanks for everyone's input. FOLLOW UP We recently started a new small project and a small portion of the team used TDD, the rest wrote unit tests after the code. After we wrapped up the coding portion of the project, those writing unit tests after the code were surprised to see the TDD coders already done and with more solid code. It was a good way to win over the skeptics. We still have a lot of growing pains ahead, but the battle of wills appears to be over. Thanks for everyone who offered advice!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing opaque structure based C API

    - by Nicolas Goy
    I have a library I wrote with API based on opaque structures. Using opaque structures has a lot of benefits and I am very happy with it. Now that my API are stable in term of specifications, I'd like to write a complete battery of unit test to ensure a solid base before releasing it. My concern is simple, how do you unit test API based on opaque structures where the main goal is to hide the internal logic? For example, let's take a very simple object, an array with a very simple test: WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); int foo = 5; WSArrayAppendValue(a, &foo); int *bar = WSArrayGetValueAtIndex(a, 0); if(&foo != bar) printf("Eroneous value returned\n"); else printf("Good value returned\n"); WSRelease(a); Of course, this tests some facts, like the array actually acts as wanted with 1 value, but when I write unit tests, at least in C, I usualy compare the memory footprint of my datastructures with a known state. In my example, I don't know if some internal state of the array is broken. How would you handle that? I'd really like to avoid adding codes in the implementation files only for unit testings, I really emphasis loose coupling of modules, and injecting unit tests into the implementation would seem rather invasive to me. My first thought was to include the implementation file into my unit test, linking my unit test statically to my library. For example: #include <WS/WS.h> #include <WS/Collection/Array.c> static void TestArray(void) { WSArray a = WSArrayCreate(); /* Structure members are available because we included Array.c */ printf("%d\n", a->count); } Is that a good idea? Of course, the unit tests won't benefit from encapsulation, but they are here to ensure it's actually working.

    Read the article

  • what appropriate "Allocation Unit Size" for an exFAT SD card with ReadyBoost

    - by Revolter
    I've brought an 4GB SD card and I'm dedicating it for use by ReadyBoost (on Windows7) Im looking to get the most profit on performance, so i've formatted it with exFAT (as recommended by Microsoft) but I have some doubts to define what best .Allocation Unit Size* I should choose. Since I can't get how ReadyBoost/SD card exactly read/seek the data, can someone tell what make choosing an Allocation Unit Size in favor of another for this scheme ? Apparently, ReadyBoost is allocating all the free space in SD card as one huge file, so a big Allocation Unit Size is advised for fastest reading time. I'm not confusing with ordinary HDD's ?

    Read the article

  • WPF: Reloading app parts to handle persistence as well as memory management.

    - by Ingó Vals
    I created a app using Microsoft's WPF. It mostly handles data reading and input as well as associating relations between data within specific parameters. As a total beginner I made some bad design decision ( not so much decisions as using the first thing I got to work ) but now understanding WPF better I'm getting the urge to refactor my code with better design principles. I had several problems but I guess each deserves it's own question for clarity. Here I'm asking for proper ways to handle the data itself. In the original I wrapped each row in a object when fetched from database ( using LINQ to SQL ) somewhat like Active Record just not active or persistence (each app instance had it's own data handling part). The app has subunits handling different aspects. However as it was setup it loaded everything when started. This creates several problems, for example often it wouldn't be neccesary to load a part unless we were specifically going to work with that part so I wan't some form of lazy loading. Also there was problem with inner persistance because you might create a new object/row in one aspect and perhaps set relation between it and different object but the new object wouldn't appear until the program was restarted. Persistance between instances of the app won't be huge problem because of the small amount of people using the program. While I could solve this now using dirty tricks I would rather refactor the program and do it elegantly, Now the question is how. I know there are several ways and a few come to mind: 1) Each aspect of the program is it's own UserControl that get's reloaded/instanced everytime you navigate to it. This ensures you only load up the data you need and you get some persistancy. DB server located on same LAN and tables are small so that shouldn't be a big problem. Minor drawback is that you would have to remember the state of each aspect so you wouldn't always start at beginners square. 2) Having a ViewModel type object at the base level of the app with lazy loading and some kind of timeout. I would then propegate this object down the visual tree to ensure every aspect is getting it's data from the same instance 3) Semi active record data layer with static load methods. 4) Some other idea What in your opinion is the most practical way in WPF, what does MVVM assume?

    Read the article

  • How do you set a custom session when unit testing with wicket?

    - by vagabond
    I'm trying to run some unit tests on a wicket page that only allows access after you've logged in. In my JUnit test I cannot start the page or render it without setting the session. How do you set the session? I'm having problems finding any documentation on how to do this. WicketTester tester = new WicketTester(new MyApp()); ((MyCustomSession)tester.getWicketSession()).setItem(MyFactory.getItem("abc")); //Fails to start below, no session seems to be set tester.startPage(General.class); tester.assertRenderedPage(General.class);

    Read the article

  • When creating an library published on CodePlex, how "bad" would it be for the unit-test projects to rely on commercial products?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have started a project on CodePlex for a WebDAV server implementation for .NET, so that I can host a WebDAV server in my own programs. This is both a learning/research project (WebDAV + server portion) as well as a project I think I can have much fun with, both in terms of making it and using it. However, I see a need to do mocking of types here in order to unit-testing properly. For instance, I will be relying on HttpListener for the web server portion of the WebDAV server, and since this type has no interface, and is sealed, I cannot easily make mocks or stubs out of it. Unless I use something like TypeMock. So if I used TypeMock in the unit-test projects on this library, how bad would this be for potential users? The projects are made in C# 3.5 for .NET 3.5 and 4.0, and the project files was created with Visual Studio 2010 Professional. The actual class libraries you would end up referencing in your software would of course not be encumbered with anything remotely like this, only the unit-test libraries. What's your thoughts on this? As an example, I have in my old code-base, which is private, the ability to just initiate a WebDAV server with just this: var server = new WebDAVServer(); This constructs, and owns, a HttpListener instance internally, and I would like to verify through unit-tests that if I dispose of this server object, the internal listener is disposed of. If, on the other hand, I use the overload where I hand it a listener object, this object should not be disposed of. Short of exposing the internal listener object to the outside world, something I'm a bit loath to do, how can I in a good way ensure that the object was disposed of? With TypeMock I can mock away parts of this object even though it isn't accessed through interfaces. The alternative would be for me to wrap everything in wrapper classes, where I have complete control.

    Read the article

  • Unit testing methods decorated with custom attributes

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes. These attributes are fairly sophisticated and I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Performance Testing Versus Unit Testing

    - by Mystagogue
    I'm reading Osherove's "The Art of Unit Testing," and though I've not yet seen him say anything about performance testing, two thoughts still cross my mind: Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance tests generally need to run for long periods of time. Performance tests generally can't be unit tests, because performance issues too often manifest at an integration or system level (or at least the logic of a single unit test needed to re-create the performance of the integration environment would be too involved to be a unit test). Particularly for the first reason stated above, I doubt it makes sense for performance tests to be handled by a unit testing framework (such as NUnit). My question is: do my findings / leanings correspond with the thoughts of the community?

    Read the article

  • Unit test class inherited from ContextBoundObject and decorated with ContextAttribute

    - by Joel Cunningham
    I am trying to retrofit unit tests on to some existing code base. Both the class and method I want to unit test is decorated with custom attributes that are inherited from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute. I dont want them to run as part of the unit test. The only solution I have come up with is to compile the attribute out when I want to unit test. I dont really like this solution and would prefer to either replace it with a mocked attribute at runtime or prevent the attribute from running in a more elegant way. How do you unit test code that has class and method attributes that inherit from ContextBoundObject and ContextAttribute that you dont want to run as part of a unit test? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How often should we write unit tests?

    - by Midnight Blue
    Hi, I am recently introduced to the test-driven approach to development by my mentor at work, and he encourages me to write an unit-test whenenver "it makes sense." I understand some benefits of having a throughout unit-test suite for both regression testing and refractoring, but I do wonder how often and how throughout we should write unit-test. My mentor/development lead asks me to write a new unit test-case for a newly written control flow in a method that is already being tested by the exsisting test class, and I think it is an overkill. How often do you write your unit tests, and how detailed do you think your unit tests should be? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Errors rose when a Netbean Maven Project tries to run

    - by Zakaria
    Hi everybody, I installed NetBeans 6.8 on Vista and and I'm trying to execute a simple Maven Project. When I ran the project, I got this set of errors: WARNING: You are running embedded Maven builds, some build may fail due to incompatibilities with latest Maven release. To set Maven instance to use for building, click here. Scanning for projects... [#process-resources] [resources:resources] Using default encoding to copy filtered resources. [#compile] [compiler:compile] Nothing to compile - all classes are up to date [exec:exec] [EL Info]: 2010-04-04 18:22:54.907--ServerSession(15532856)--EclipseLink, version: Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.0.0.v20091127-r5931 [EL Severe]: 2010-04-04 18:22:54.929--ServerSession(15532856)--Local Exception Stack: Exception [EclipseLink-4003] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.0.0.v20091127-r5931): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException Exception in thread "main" javax.persistence.PersistenceException: Exception [EclipseLink-4003] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.0.0.v20091127-r5931): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException Exception Description: Configuration error. Class [org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientDriver] not found. Exception Description: Configuration error. Class [org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientDriver] not found. at org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.configurationErrorClassNotFound(DatabaseException.java:82) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DefaultConnector.loadDriverClass(DefaultConnector.java:267) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DefaultConnector.connect(DefaultConnector.java:85) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerSetupImpl.deploy(EntityManagerSetupImpl.java:392) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DatasourceLogin.connectToDatasource(DatasourceLogin.java:162) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.getServerSession(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:151) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.loginAndDetectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:584) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.createEntityManagerImpl(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:207) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryProvider.login(EntityManagerFactoryProvider.java:228) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.createEntityManager(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:195) at com.mycompany.chapter2_ex1.Main.main(Main.java:31) Caused by: Exception [EclipseLink-4003] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.0.0.v20091127-r5931): org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException Exception Description: Configuration error. Class [org.apache.derby.jdbc.ClientDriver] not found. at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerSetupImpl.deploy(EntityManagerSetupImpl.java:368) at org.eclipse.persistence.exceptions.DatabaseException.configurationErrorClassNotFound(DatabaseException.java:82) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.getServerSession(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:151) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DefaultConnector.loadDriverClass(DefaultConnector.java:267) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.createEntityManagerImpl(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:207) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DefaultConnector.connect(DefaultConnector.java:85) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryImpl.createEntityManager(EntityManagerFactoryImpl.java:195) at org.eclipse.persistence.sessions.DatasourceLogin.connectToDatasource(DatasourceLogin.java:162) at com.mycompany.chapter2_ex1.Main.main(Main.java:31) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.sessions.DatabaseSessionImpl.loginAndDetectDatasource(DatabaseSessionImpl.java:584) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerFactoryProvider.login(EntityManagerFactoryProvider.java:228) at org.eclipse.persistence.internal.jpa.EntityManagerSetupImpl.deploy(EntityManagerSetupImpl.java:368) ... 4 more [ERROR]The following mojo encountered an error while executing: [ERROR]Group-Id: org.codehaus.mojo [ERROR]Artifact-Id: exec-maven-plugin [ERROR]Version: 1.1.1 [ERROR]Mojo: exec [ERROR]brought in via: Direct invocation [ERROR]While building project: [ERROR]Group-Id: com.mycompany [ERROR]Artifact-Id: chapter2_ex1 [ERROR]Version: 1.0-SNAPSHOT [ERROR]From file: C:\Users\Charlotte\Documents\NetBeansProjects\chapter2_ex1\pom.xml [ERROR]Reason: Result of cmd.exe /X /C ""C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.6.0_11\bin\java.exe" -classpath C:\Users\Charlotte\Documents\NetBeansProjects\chapter2_ex1\target\classes;C:\Users\Charlotte\.m2\repository\javax\persistence\persistence-api\1.0\persistence-api-1.0.jar;C:\Users\Charlotte\.m2\repository\org\eclipse\persistence\javax.persistence\2.0.0\javax.persistence-2.0.0.jar;C:\Users\Charlotte\.m2\repository\org\eclipse\persistence\eclipselink\2.0.0-RC1\eclipselink-2.0.0-RC1.jar com.mycompany.chapter2_ex1.Main" execution is: '1'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ For more information, run with the -e flag ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BUILD FAILED ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total time: 3 seconds Finished at: Sun Apr 04 18:22:55 CEST 2010 Final Memory: 47M/94M ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Theses exceptions rose even if I can run the database by using the console (ij) and when I connect the Database, no errors are showing. Can you help me please? Thank you very much. Regards.

    Read the article

  • How can I unit test a class which requires a web service call?

    - by Chris Cooper
    I'm trying to test a class which calls some Hadoop web services. The code is pretty much of the form: method() { ...use Jersey client to create WebResource... ...make request... ...do something with response... } e.g. there is a create directory method, a create folder method etc. Given that the code is dealing with an external web service that I don't have control over, how can I unit test this? I could try and mock the web service client/responses but that breaks the guideline I've seen a lot recently: "Don't mock objects you don't own". I could set up a dummy web service implementation - would that still constitute a "unit test" or would it then be an integration test? Is it just not possible to unit test at this low a level - how would a TDD practitioner go about this?

    Read the article

  • why my unit testing taken more than normal time to run in VS 2010 Premium [on hold]

    - by kombo
    I have only 4 proeject in my solutions. Am trying to run a unit test for one of my class in one of the project. I Create the unit test by: Right clicking on the class choose the create unit test option. I followed the wizard to the end.which resulting the test creation. I just pass the values of the parameter and run the test. but my test keep running. Both surprisingly it runs on other developers pc. NB:My class is connecting to the database and my application is asp.net web form. i know this is not recommended but i want to have my test running now. i have tried alot of samples on the internet but still my problem persist. Could any one tell me the cause of the extreme slowness(more than 30 minutes)

    Read the article

  • Best Persistence API for use with GWT

    - by KevMo
    What is the best persistence API for use with GWT? Sadly, the application will be hosted on my own java server, as I will need more control than GAE will give me. I know I will need to have two sets of my entities, one for the server side, and some pojo's for the client side. I'm looking to make the mapping of the data as simple as possible between the two, but these will be deeply nested objects so it has to be robust. I was looking at Dozer for my mapping needs. Previously I've used EJB3 with TopLink, so that's very familiar to me, but I would like to get community input on what other API's work well with Dozer and GWT.

    Read the article

  • Persistence provider for Java that supports final fields

    - by naeron84
    I'm very new to Java but I've been developing a habit to use final wherever possible declaring immutability which i think is a good thing. (Consider f#) I've read that JPA does not support final fields. Hibernate, TopLink? I'm not sure about these but i prefer JPA for now. Is that even possible theoretically - let's say through reflection - to modify final fields after creation? My guess would be... NO :) What would be certainly possible for a persistence solution is to support constructors with parameters. At least i see no reason that would make this impossible. Mapping would be a little tricky i guess. This is an alternative solution. Suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Memory-Mapped Files & Transparent Persistence of Java Objects

    - by geeko
    Greeting All, I want to achieve transparent persistence of Java objects through memory-mapped files (utilize the OS paging/swapping mechanism). My problem is: how can I move a Java object to my memory-mapped block ? Plus, how can I force a new object instance to reside in such blocks ? As you all know, a memory-mapped block can be seen as a byte array, and what I am really asking here is how to overlap the address space of Java objects with the one of such arrays ? If Java does not allow me for this, what cross-platform & garbage-collecting OO language would you advise me to use ? Thank you all in advance.

    Read the article

  • Android Activities UI Persistence

    - by aandroid
    I need to have two activities in an Android app that can be switched between each other with UI persistence as follows: Activity A launches Activity B. User triggers some UI changes in Activity B. Activity B returns to Activity A (by a call to onBackPressed() or something similar) Activity A re-launches Activity B. I would like the changes made in step 2 to be visible in step 4. I have tried using the singleInstance activity tag on Activity B to no avail. I would also prefer a more elegant solution than simply writing all object properties to a file or SQLite table. It seems that this behaviour must be easily achievable given that Android does it automatically for calls to onBackPressed() where the parent Activity's UI is saved. Any help is much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing-- fundamental goal?

    - by David
    Me and my co-workers had a bit of a disagreement last night about unit testing in our PHP/MySQL application. Half of us argued that when unit testing a function within a class, you should mock everything outside of that class and its parents. The other half of us argued that you SHOULDN'T mock anything that is a direct dependancy of the class either. The specific example was our logging mechanism, which happened through a static Logging class, and we had a number of Logging::log() calls in various locations throughout our application. The first half of us said the Logging mechanism should be faked (mocked) because it would be tested in the Logging unit tests. The second half of us argued that we should include the original Logging class in our unit test so that if we make a change to our logging interface, we'll be able to see if it creates problems in other parts of the application due to failing to update the call interface. So I guess the fundamental question is-- do unit tests serve to test the functionality of a single unit in a closed environment, or show the consequences of changes to a single unit in a larger environment? If it's one of these, how do you accomplish the other?

    Read the article

  • Implementing Transparent Persistence

    - by Jules
    Transparent persistence allows you to use regular objects instead of a database. The objects are automatically read from and written to disk. Examples of such systems are Gemstone and Rucksack (for common lisp). Simplified version of what they do: if you access foo.bar and bar is not in memory, it gets loaded from disk. If you do foo.bar = baz then the foo object gets updated on disk. Most systems also have some form of transactions, and they may have support for sharing objects across programs and even across a network. My question is what are the different techniques for implementing these kind of systems and what are the trade offs between these implementation approaches?

    Read the article

  • Unit testing in python?

    - by yossi.ittach
    Hey - I'm new to python , and I'm having a hard time grasping the concept of Unit testing in python. I'm coming from Java - so unit testing makes sense because - well , there you actually have a unit - A Class. But a Python class is not necessarily the same as a Java class , and the way I use Python - as a scripting language - is more functional then OOP - So what do you "unit test" in Python ? A flow? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Unit testing an iPhone static library with XCode 3

    - by teabot
    I am writing a number of static libraries for the iPhone and wish also to have suites of unit tests. XCode 3 provides templates for both static libraries and unit tests but I am wondering how they should fit together in a static library project? In my static library project I have created a target for unit testing but expect to also create an executable to kick off the unit tests than run against the classes in the static library. What is the procedure for doing this?

    Read the article

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