Search Results

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

Page 72/348 | < Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >

• Is it a bad practice to have an interface to define constants?

  - by FabianB

  I am writing a set of junit test classes in java. There are several constants, for example strings that I will need in different test classes. I am thinking about an interface that defines them and every test class would implement it. The benefits I see there are: easy access to constants: "MY_CONSTANT" instead of "ThatClass.MY_CONSTANT" each constant defined only once Is this approach rather a good or bad practice? I feel like abusing the concept of interfaces a little bit. You can answer generally about interfaces/constants, but also about unit tests if there is something special about it.

  Read the article

• HTML5 article tag application for the iPad

  - by dspencer

  I've used article tags on websites. My understanding and practice is to use the article tag for publication content. I always use HTML/HTML5 tags as their intended purposes and not at will. Recently, I've seen an HTML template that uses the article tag for the non-publication page content such as the content of an About Us page or any other generic page. I asked the why it was used this way and the (vague) explanation was that it had to do with the way the iPad read the tag. Is this true?

  Read the article

• DDD: service contains two repository

  - by tikhop

  Does it correct way to have two repository inside one service and will it be an application or domain service? Suppose I have a Passenger object that should contains Passport (government id) object. I am getting Passenger from PassengerRepository. PassengerRepository create request to server and obtain data (json) than parse received data and store inside repository. I have confused because I want to store Passport as Entity and put it to PassportRepository but all information about password contains inside json than i received above. I guess that I should create a PassengerService that will be include PassengerRepository and PassportRepository with several methods like removePassport, addPassport, getAllPassenger and etc. UPDATE: So I guess that the better way is represent Passport as VO and store all passports inside Passenger aggregate. However there is another question: Where I should put the methods (methods calls server api) for management passenger's passport. I think the better place is so within Passenger aggregate.

  Read the article

• practical use of knowledge vs tutorials [on hold]

  - by Lauris Skraucis

  I DONT NEED FACTS,I NEED OPINIONS FROM OTHER DEVELOPERS! Which would be more useful, spend more time on tutorials than on practical use of knowledge or spend more time making real life apps? Like I do everything 50/50 or better I spend all time practicing and putting my knowledge in real life things (php, jQuery, AngularJS)? This is a big pain, I learnt jQuery, then Angular, then php, but didn't practice and forget the code, now I watched basic and intermediate tutorials to refresh knowledge, so what do you think what is the best?

  Read the article

• "Never do in code what you can get the SQL server to do well for you" - Is this a recipe for a bad design?

  - by PhonicUK

  It's an idea I've heard repeated in a handful of places. Some more or less acknowledging that once trying to solve a problem purely in SQL exceeds a certain level of complexity you should indeed be handling it in code. The logic behind the idea is that for the large majority of cases, the database engine will do a better job at finding the most efficient way of completing your task than you could in code. Especially when it comes to things like making the results conditional on operations performed on the data. Arguably with modern engines effectively JIT'ing + caching the compiled version of your query it'd make sense on the surface. The question is whether or not leveraging your database engine in this way is inherently bad design practice (and why). The lines become blurred further when all the logic exists inside the database and you're just hitting it via an ORM.

  Read the article

• iOS app with a lot of text

  - by rdurand

  I just asked a question on StackOverflow, but I'm thinking that a part of it belongs here, as questions about design pattern are welcomed by the faq. Here is my situation. I have developed almost completely a native iOS app. The last section I need to implement is all the rules of a sport, so that's a lot of text. It has one main level of sections, divided in subsections, containing a lot of structured text (paragraphs, a few pictures, bulleted/numbered lists, tables). I have absolutely no problem with coding, I'm just looking for advice to improve and make the best design pattern possible for my app. My first shot (the last one so far) was a UITableViewController containing the sections, sending the user to another UITableViewController with the subsections of the selected section, and then one strange last UITableViewController where the cells contain UITextViews, sections header help structure the content, etc. What I would like is your advice on how to improve the structure of this section. I'm perfectly ready to destroy/rebuild the whole thing, I'm really lost in my design here.. As I said on SO, I've began to implement a UIWebView in a UIViewController, showing a html page with JQuery Mobile to display the content, and it's fine. My question is more about the 2 views taking the user to that content. I used UITableViewControllers because that's what seemed the most appropriate for a structured hierarchy like this one. But that doesn't seem like the best solution in term of user experience.. What structure / "view-flow" / kind of presentation would you try to implement in my situation? As always, any help would be greatly appreciated! Just so you can understand better the hierarchy, with a simple example : -----> Section 1 -----> SubSection 1.1 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 1.2 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 1.3 -----> Content | | | UINavigationController -------> Section 2 -----> SubSection 2.1 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 2.2 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 2.3 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 2.4 -----> Content | -----> SubSection 2.5 -----> Content | -----> Section 3 -----> SubSection 3.1 -----> Content -----> SubSection 3.2 -----> Content |------------------| |--------------------| |-------------| 1 UITableViewController 3 UITableViewControllers 10 UIViewControllers (3 rows) (with different with a UIWebView number of rows)

  Read the article

• What is the preferred pattern when attaching a 'runtime object'?

  - by sebf

  In my application I have the following: public class NeatObject { /* lots of static data, and configuration flags */ } public class NeatObjectConsumer { void DoCleverStuffWithObjectOnGPU(NeatObject obj); } Where NeatObject and its consumer are used to control the GPU. The idea being that, the configuration of an instance of NeatObject and its members, define how the consumer instance behaves. The object can be passed around, edited, and most importantly serialised/deserialised by the application, with and without knowledge of NeatObjectConsumer, then provided back to the consumer to do something else. The purpose of this seperation is: The consumer manages hardware resources, which change depending on the computer, and even on the execution of the application, making preserving the state of an object which does everything difficult. Avoids circular references if the assembly that contains the consumer needs to reference one that only needs to know about NeatObject. However, there is a complication in that the consumer creates hardware resources and needs to associate them with NeatObject. These don't need to be preserved, but still need to be retrieved. DoCleverStuffWithObjectOnGPU() will be called many, many times during execution and so any bottleneck is a concern, therefore I would like to avoid dictionary lookups. What is the preferred method of attaching this information to NeatObject? By preferred, I mean intuitive - other coders can see immediately what is going on - and robust - method doesn't invite playing with the resources or present them in such a way as to make them easily corruptible. Essentially, I want to add my own metadata - how should I do it? Try to use 'actual metadata' functionality like Reflection? A member of the type of an abstract class? Unmanaged pointers? If you took on a project that used this pattern, what would you have liked the previous developer to do?

  Read the article

• Dynamic Strategy Pattern [migrated]

  - by Karl Barker

  So I'm writing a web service architecture which includes FunctionProvider classes which do the actual processing of requests, and a main Endpoint class which receives and delegates requests to the proper FunctionProvider. I don't know exactly the FunctionProviders available at runtime, so I need to be able to 'register' (if that's the right word) them with my main Endpoint class, and query them to see if they match an incoming request. public class MyFunc implements FunctionProvider{ static { MyEndpoint.register(MyFunc); } public Boolean matchesRequest(Request req){...} public void processRequest(Request req){...} } public class MyEndpoint{ private static ArrayList<FunctionProvider> functions = new ArrayList<FunctionProvider>(); public void register(Class clz){ functions.add(clz); } public void doPost(Request request){ //find the FunctionProvider in functions //matching the request } } I've really not done much reflective Java like this (and the above is likely wrong, but hopefully demonstrates my intentions). What's the nicest way to implement this without getting hacky?

  Read the article

• How to create a manager class without global variables nor singletons?

  - by Omega

  I would like to implement some kind of manager class in my application. It will be in charge of loading textures, processing them, distributing them etc... At first, I wanted to make a global variable that simply contains an instance of my manager class. I found this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4646577/global-variables-in-java. However, the users there seem to recommend to never use global variables. Fine then, I once heard about Singletons, so I though I could use that instead. I mean, creating just one instance of my manager class sounds good. However, I found this other question: When is Singleton appropriate?, which basically tells me that Singletons are, in most scenarios, some kind of anti-pattern. Now I am a bit lost - what other approach can I take to create my manager class, whose only requirement is to be accessible from anywhere?

  Read the article

• How to separate and maintain customer specific code

  - by WYSIWYG

  I am implementing customer specific code and currently following simple approach like if (cusomterId == 23) do it. I want to separate out all the customer related code in separate place. But I have following problems. In code is in 1. Stored procs 2. Plain old classes. 3. Controllers 4. Views I came up with two solutions. First is to create table CustomerFunctionlity with columns CustomerId, FunctionalityName, method/Proc, inputs/outputs With this table I can simply check if exists, execute given function. Another way is creating a factory which returns customer related object for an interface. I am writting small end to end customer specific functionalities. How can I write maintenable code. Thanks

  Read the article

• Entry level engineer question regarding memory management

  - by Ealianis

  It has been a few months since I started my position as an entry level software developer. Now that I am past some learning curves (e.g. the language, jargon, syntax of VB and C#) I'm starting to focus on more esoteric topics, as to write better software. A simple question I presented to a fellow coworker was responded with "I'm focusing on the wrong things." While I respect this coworker I do disagree that this is a "wrong thing" to focus upon. Here was the code (in VB) and followed by the question. Note: The Function GenerateAlert() returns an integer. Dim alertID as Integer = GenerateAlert() _errorDictionary.Add(argErrorID, NewErrorInfo(Now(), alertID)) vs... _errorDictionary.Add(argErrorID, New ErrorInfo(Now(), GenerateAlert())) I originally wrote the latter and rewrote it with the "Dim alertID" so that someone else might find it easier to read. But here was my concern and question: Should one write this with the Dim AlertID, it would in fact take up more memory; finite but more, and should this method be called many times could it lead to an issue? How will .NET handle this object AlertID. Outside of .NET should one manually dispose of the object after use (near the end of the sub). I want to ensure I become a knowledgeable programmer that does not just rely upon garbage collection. Am I over thinking this? Am I focusing on the wrong things?

  Read the article

• Separating Db from business with Inherited classes using multiple views

  - by catalinux

  I have a software that has a car model that will be used in different views (listing, ads, detail page, carousel, up sell widget,etc). class CarModel extends DbModel{ } I look for a "nice way" (a combination of flexible, easy to maintain,etc) to have this used in views. I'm thinking at two different ways Having object views for each context CarViewBase{ var car;// of type CarModel function constructor(args){ //will instantienta internal variable car based on args } function getThumb(){ } function getTitle(){ } } CarListingView extends CarViewBase{ function getListing(){ } } CarAdsView extends CarViewBase{ //the busines rule changes for ads widget function getThumb(){ } } Extending directly the CarModel The challenges comes when My Car Model might need an abstract factory. Let's say I have a field on my car object that states the type of the car : a truck, or a bike, or van. How would affect that my object view? Let's say that getTitle() rule would be different for each type of it. How would you do it?

  Read the article

• Is it better to use preprocessor directive or if(constant) statement?

  - by MByD

  Let's say we have a codebase that is used for many different costumer, and we have some code in it that relevant only for costumers of type X. Is it better to use preprocessor directives to include this code only in costumer of type X, or to use if statement, to be more clear: // some code #if TYPE_X_COSTUMER = 1 // do some things #endif // rest of the code or if(TYPE_X_COSTUMER) { // do some things } The arguments I can think about are: Preprocessor directive results in smaller code footprint and less branches (on non-optimizing compilers) If statements results with code that always compiles, e.g. if someone will make a mistake that will harm the irrelevant code for the project he works on, the error will still appear, and he will not corrupt the code base. Otherwise he will not be aware of the corruption. I was always been told to prefer the usage of the processor over the usage of the preprocessor (If this is an argument at all...) What is preferable - when talking about a code base for many different costumers?

  Read the article

• Handling large integers in python [migrated]

  - by Sushma Palimar

  I had written a program in python to find b such that a prime number p divides b^2-8. The range for b is [1, (p+1)/2]. For small integers it works, say only up to 7 digits. But not for large integers, say for p = 140737471578113. I get the error message for i in range (2,p1,1): MemoryError I wrote the program as #!/usr/bin/python3 p=long(raw_input('enter the prime number:')) p1=long((p+1)/2) for i in range (2,p1,1): s = long((i*i)-8) if (s%p==0): print i

  Read the article

• Domain Model and Querying

  - by Tyrsius

  I am new to DDD, having worked only in Transaction-Script apps with an anemic model, or just Big Balls of Mud, so please forgive any terminology I abuse. I am trying to understand the proper separation between the domain model and the repository. What is the proper way to construct a domain object that is coming from a database, assuming the (incredibly simplified) need to query for objects by status (returns enumerable), or by ID. Should a factory be building the objects, exposing methods for GetByStatus() and GetByID(), using a DIed repository? Should a repository be called directly, knowing how to build a domain model from the DTO? Should the domain model have a constructor for get by ID, using a DIed repoistory to load the initial state, using some other (?) method for the list? I am not really sure what the best way would be, and this question has an answer advocating each one (these are certainly mutuallu exclusive).

  Read the article

• "Testing Plan Lite" for web project

  - by Emmmmm

  How do you draft a quick & easy "Testing Plan Lite" for a medium-sized web project (70k lines, 2 developers)? I've seen many tutorials/articles on methods of testing, but all seem cumbersome. For us, the goal is to be able to be able to divide up and delegate testing instructions to our friends for different project segments, browsers, etc. What's the quick & easy way to write test plans for web apps? (the 20 of the 20/80 rule) Thanks!

  Read the article

• What Design Pattern is separating transform converters

  - by RevMoon

  For converting a Java object model into XML I am using the following design: For different types of objects (e.g. primitive types, collections, null, etc.) I define each its own converter, which acts appropriate with respect to the given type. This way it can easily extended without adding code to a huge if-else-then construct. The converters are chosen by a method which tests whether the object is convertable at all and by using a priority ordering. The priority ordering is important so let's say a List is not converted by the POJO converter, even though it is convertable as such it would be more appropriate to use the collection converter. What design pattern is that? I can only think of a similarity to the command pattern.

  Read the article

• Creating a Predicate Builder extension method

  - by Rippo

  I have a Kendo UI Grid that I am currently allowing filtering on multiple columns. I am wondering if there is a an alternative approach removing the outer switch statement? Basically I want to able to create an extension method so I can filter on a IQueryable<T> and I want to drop the outer case statement so I don't have to switch column names. private static IQueryable<Contact> FilterContactList(FilterDescriptor filter, IQueryable<Contact> contactList) { switch (filter.Member) { case "Name": switch (filter.Operator) { case FilterOperator.StartsWith: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString()) || w.Lastname.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString()) || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname).StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.Contains: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname.Contains(filter.Value.ToString()) || w.Lastname.Contains(filter.Value.ToString()) || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname).Contains( filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.IsEqualTo: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Firstname == filter.Value.ToString() || w.Lastname == filter.Value.ToString() || (w.Firstname + " " + w.Lastname) == filter.Value.ToString()); break; } break; case "Company": switch (filter.Operator) { case FilterOperator.StartsWith: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company.StartsWith(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.Contains: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company.Contains(filter.Value.ToString())); break; case FilterOperator.IsEqualTo: contactList = contactList.Where(w => w.Company == filter.Value.ToString()); break; } break; } return contactList; } Some additional information, I am using NHibernate Linq. Also another problem is that the "Name" column on my grid is actually "Firstname" + " " + "LastName" on my contact entity. We can also assume that all filterable columns will be strings.

  Read the article

• Is there a pattern to restrict which classes can update another class?

  - by Mike

  Say I have a class ImportantInfo with a public writable property Data. Many classes will read this property but only a few will ever set it. Basically, if you want to update Data you should really know what you're doing. Is there a pattern I could use to make this explicit other than by documenting it? For example, some way to enforce that only classes that implement IUpdateImportantData can do it (this is just an example)? I'm not talking about security here, but more of a "hey, are you sure you want to do that?" kind of thing.

  Read the article

• Guidelines or Design pattern to develop configurable software

  - by Rumit Parakhiya

  I want to develop an application which would have it's own framework, using which developer can implement functionality very easily. Developer shouldn't have to code for each and every page or report. But, he can do it very easily by just configuring it using the framework provided. Some nice examples of it is SAP and Tally. They have got their own framework, using which anybody having knowledge of it can customize or extend functionality of the product. But, as I am beginner in this direction, I don't have any idea about where to start. Can anybody point me to some design pattern which I can follow or some similar open source software which I can refer?

  Read the article

• Hide or Show singleton?

  - by Sinker

  Singleton is a common pattern implemented in both native libraries of .NET and Java. You will see it as such: C#: MyClass.Instance Java: MyClass.getInstance() The question is: when writing APIs, is it better to expose the singleton through a property or getter, or should I hide it as much as possible? Here are the alternatives for illustrative purposes: Exposed(C#): private static MyClass instance; public static MyClass Instance { get { if (instance == null) instance = new MyClass(); return instance; } } public void PerformOperation() { ... } Hidden (C#): private static MyClass instance; public static void PerformOperation() { if (instance == null) { instance = new MyClass(); } ... } EDIT: There seems to be a number of detractors of the Singleton design. Great! Please tell me why and what is the better alternative. Here is my scenario: My whole application utilises one logger (log4net/log4j). Whenever, the program has something to log, it utilises the Logger class (e.g. Logger.Instance.Warn(...) or Logger.Instance.Error(...) etc. Should I use Logger.Warn(...) or Logger.Warn(...) instead? If you have an alternative to singletons that addresses my concern, then please write an answer for it. Thank you :)

  Read the article

• Should you apply a language filter to a randomly generated string?

  - by Tim

  A while back I created a licensing system for my companies new product, as well as all products after this one. As with a lot of licensing systems mine generates codes: 25 character product and registration codes, as well as 16 character module unlocking codes. My question is, since some parts of these generated codes are random should I apply a language filter to it to avoid any embarrassing language being given to the end users? I chose to as it was not difficult at all. But has anyone else ever came across something like this? Any viewpoints as to if it is worth the effort?

  Read the article

• Moving from mock to real objects?

  - by jjchiw

  I'm like doing TDD so I started everything mocking objects, creating interface, stubbing, great. The design seems to work, now I'll implement the stuff, a lot of the code used in the stubs are going to be reused in my real implementation yay! Now should I duplicate the tests to use the real object implementation (but keeping the mocks object of the sensitive stuff like Database and "services" that are out of my context (http calls, etc...)) Or just change the mocks and stubs of the actual tests to use the real objects....... So the question is that, keep two tests or replace the stubs, mocks? And after that, I should keep designing with the mocks, stubs or just go with real objects? (Just making myself clear I'll keep the mock object of the sensitive stuff like database and services that are out of my context, in both situations.)

  Read the article

• Which is a better design pattern for a database wrapper: Save as you go or Save when your done?

  - by izuriel

  I know this is probably a bad way to ask this question. I was unable to find another question that addressed this. The full question is this: We're producing a wrapper for a database and have two different viewpoints on managing data with the wrapper. The first is that all changes made to a data object in code must be persisted in the database by calling a "save" method to actually save the changes. The other side is that these changes should be save as they are made, so if I change a property it's saved, I change another it's save as well. What are the pros/cons of either choice and which is the "proper" way to manage the data?

  Read the article

• Is the use of explicit ' == true' comparison always bad? [closed]

  - by Slomojo

  Possible Duplicate: Make a big deal out of == true? I've been looking at a lot of code samples recently, and I keep noticing the use of... if( expression == true ) // do something... and... x = ( expression == true ) ? x : y; I've tended to always use... x = ( expression ) ? x : y; and... if( expression ) // do something... Where == true is implicit (and obvious?) Is this just a habit of mine, and I'm being picky about the explicit use of == true, or is it simply bad practice?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79  | Next Page >