Search Results

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

Page 73/348 | < Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >

  • Tips for Making this Code Testable [migrated]

    - by Jesse Bunch
    So I'm writing an abstraction layer that wraps a telephony RESTful service for sending text messages and making phone calls. I should build this in such a way that the low-level provider, in this case Twilio, can be easily swapped without having to re-code the higher level interactions. I'm using a package that is pre-built for Twilio and so I'm thinking that I need to create a wrapper interface to standardize the interaction between the Twilio service package and my application. Let us pretend that I cannot modify this pre-built package. Here is what I have so far (in PHP): <?php namespace Telephony; class Provider_Twilio implements Provider_Interface { public function send_sms(Provider_Request_SMS $request) { if (!$request->is_valid()) throw new Provider_Exception_InvalidRequest(); $sms = \Twilio\Twilio::request('SmsMessage'); $response = $sms->create(array( 'To' => $request->to, 'From' => $request->from, 'Body' => $request->body )); if ($this->_did_request_fail($response)) { throw new Provider_Exception_RequestFailed($response->message); } $response = new Provider_Response_SMS(TRUE); return $response; } private function _did_request_fail($api_response) { return isset($api_response->status); } } So the idea is that I can write another file like this for any other telephony service provided that it implements Provider_Interface making them swappable. Here are my questions: First off, do you think this is a good design? How could it be improved? Second, I'm having a hard time testing this because I need to mock out the Twilio package so that I'm not actually depending on Twilio's API for my tests to pass or fail. Do you see any strategy for mocking this out? Thanks in advance for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Good book about advanced programming techniques [closed]

    - by Luca
    I am looking to a book covering adavnced programming techniques, covering different practical scenarios and describing the different challanges with the relative solutions. As example, which are the best ways to implement a module for buying on a web application with credit card or how to manage responsivenes for the frontend of the web application itself (dealing with cache, optimeze plugins, etc). On the web there are tons of tutorials about these topics, but I am looking for a book where such cases are collected all together and treated by real professionists. If the book would provide some code samples, that would be a plus (especially if C# .NET), but I am more interested in the approach/solution rather than the code details. I could not find any of these cases in the general book about programming, therefore I hope someone might point me in the right direction. EDIT: I have 4 years experience as web developer, mainly with Microsoft (C#, ASP.NET, SQL Server) and client side technologies (jQuery, HTML/CSS).

    Read the article

  • When designing an application around Model-View-Controller (MVC), what is in your toolbox?

    - by ericgorr
    There are a lot of great explanations for what the Model-View-Controller design pattern is, but I am having trouble finding good resources showing how to use it in practice. So, when you are starting a new application (doesn't matter what it is), what is in your toolbox? For example, it was suggested that using UML collaboration diagrams ( http://www.objectmentor.com/resources/articles/umlCollaborationDiagrams.pdf ) can be useful when designing an application around MVC, although, I am not certain exactly how or why this might be the case...? So, what is in your toolbox for MVC?

    Read the article

  • Name for this antipattern? Fields as local variables

    - by JSB????
    In some code I'm reviewing, I'm seeing stuff that's the moral equivalent of the following: public class Foo { private Bar bar; public MethodA() { bar = new Bar(); bar.A(); bar = null; } public MethodB() { bar = new Bar(); bar.B(); bar = null; } } The field bar here is logically a local variable, as its value is never intended to persist across method calls. However, since many of the methods in Foo need an object of type Bar, the original code author has just made a field of type Bar. This is obviously bad, right? Is there a name for this antipattern?

    Read the article

  • Two HTML elements with same id attribute: How bad is it really?

    - by danludwig
    Just browsing the google maps source code. In their header, they have 2 divs with id="search" one contains the other, and also has jstrack="1" attribute. There is a form separating them like so: <div id="search" jstrack="1"> <form action="/maps" id="...rest isn't important"> ... <div id="search">... Since this is google, I'm assuming it's not a mistake. So how bad can it really be to violate this rule? As long as you are careful in your css and dom selection, why not reuse id's like classes? Does anyone do this on purpose, and if so, why?

    Read the article

  • What kind of process should I use to learn a big system?

    - by user394128
    I just joined a new company and started to study one of the their bigger system. For me to be productive, I need to understand the entire system without too much help. Other programers are really busy and dont' have time to hold my hands. I used to use brain map to draw a pictorial representation of the system. Any recommendations on what is the right appproach to dissect a big program? It is a .net prgoram by the way.

    Read the article

  • How can I refactor my code to use fewer singletons?

    - by fish
    I started a component based, networked game (so far only working on the server). I know why singletons can be bad, but I can't think of another way to implement the same thing. So far I have: A GameState singleton (for managing the global state of the game, i.e. pre-game, running, exiting). A World singleton, which is the root entity for my entity graph An EntityFactory A ComponentFactory I'm thinking about adding a "MessageDispatcher" so individual components can subscribe to network messages. The factories do not have state, so I suppose they aren't so bad. However, the others do have global state, which is asking for trouble. How can I refactor my code so it uses fewer singletons?

    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

  • In some games, we just let the main() loop be the Player object or Table object?

    - by ????
    I was thinking that let's say if there is a game of Blackjack or MasterMind, then we should have a class called Dealer or ComputerPal, which is how the computer interact with us (as a dealer for Blackjack or as the person giving hints for MasterMind). And then there should be a Player object, and the way to play one game is aPlayer.playGame but I noticed that a book was just using the main() loop to act as the player (or as the Controller of the game), calling the Dealer methods to dealer the cards, ask for player's action, etc... 1) Is this just a lazy way to model all the proper objects? 2) If more objects are to be added, who should call the aDealer.dealCards and then ask for aPlayer.askForAction? (because it is strange to let the Player handle all the logical steps). Should there be a Table object that handle all these logic and then to play one round of game, use aTable.playGame? What is a good object design for such game?

    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

  • URL Encryption vs. Encoding

    - by hozza
    At the moment non/semi sensitive information is sent from one page to another via GET on our web application. Such as user ID or page number requested etc. Sometimes slightly more sensitive information is passed such as account type, user privileges etc. We currently use base64_encode() and base64_decode() just to de-humanise the information so the end user is not concerned. Is it good practice or common place for a URL GET to be encrypted rather than simply PHP base64_encoded? Perhaps using something like, this: $encrypted = base64_encode(mcrypt_encrypt(MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_256, md5($key), $string, MCRYPT_MODE_CBC, md5(md5($key)))); $decrypted = rtrim(mcrypt_decrypt(MCRYPT_RIJNDAEL_256, md5($key), base64_decode($encrypted), MCRYPT_MODE_CBC, md5(md5($key))), "\0"); Is this too much or too power hungry for something as common as the URL GET.

    Read the article

  • Is there such a concept as "pseudo implementation" in software development?

    - by MachuPichu
    I'm looking for a label to describe the practice of using human-based computation methods or other means of "faking" an algorithm for the sake of getting a product or demo off the ground quickly without spending the time to develop an technical/scalable/analytical solution? Eg: using Amazon Turk to count the number of empty tables in a restaurant. I'm also looking to learn more about this subject, but not sure what to search for. Human-based computation is only one method, I'm interested in the general idea of pseudo-implementation. Any ideas, recommended reading? Thanks

    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

  • Legal Applications of Metamorphic Code

    - by V_P
    Firstly, I would like to state that I already understand the 'vx' applications for Metamorphic code. I am not here to ask a question related to any of those topics as that would be inappropriate in this context. I would like to know if anyone has ever used 'Metamorphic' code in practice, for purposes other than those previously stated, if so, what was the reasoning for using said concept. In essence I am trying to discover a purpose for this concept, if any, other than circumventing anti-virus scanners and the like.

    Read the article

  • What is the correct pattern to use in this case?

    - by nulliusinverba
    I'm sure this scenario has arisen before, and I want to know what experience has taught to be the best solution. I have a number of classes that are all of a kind. Say all the objects are "Content". They may be "Article", or "Book" for example. The reason I want the "Content" abstraction is because I want to define a number of behaviours for all "Content" objects and not have to build a new DB Table and 10 classes of essentially the same code for each type of "Content". For example, to attach a "Tag" or a "Premise" to a content object would be much nicer if, say, I just had two columns one for ContentID and one for TagID. A solution I've played around with is to have a Content table with a unique ID, and then to have foreign key references on all the other tables (Book, Article, etc). This has actually proven quite solid, but I'm just not sure about it. Do you know how to call this described pattern?

    Read the article

  • How to elegantly work with a lot of print functions?

    - by user1824372
    I'm working on a Python project that is executed on a terminal (or console) for which I am planning to implement a GUI. I did not major in CS so I really have no idea how to effectively design a terminal GUI such that: the user interface looks good in GUI, it is directed to a certain widget, let's say, a text label, or a bottom bar, or a hide-able frame. Do you have any suggestions? Currently, I am using the print function to provide essential information on STDOUT during execution, so a lot of print calls are distributed here and there in the code. I'm thinking of using macro-like variables such as 'FILE_NOT_EXISTS_MESSAGE' for printing, and all of them and their values would be defined in one file. Is that a standard way to do this? Should I introduce a logging system? In summary, I'm looking for a pattern for handling console output that is effective and adaptable.

    Read the article

  • Does C++ support subtyping?

    - by the_naive
    I know it might be a silly question to ask, but I didn't quite get an a absolute clear answer on this matter, so I thought I'd put it here. Does c++ support the subtyping in the sense that it fulfills Liskov's principle fully? I understand how parametric polymorphism, inclusion polymorphism(subclassing and overriding) work in c++ but I'm not entirely sure or understand if subtyping exists in the context of C++. Could you please explain?

    Read the article

  • User input and automated input separation

    - by tpaksu
    I have a MySQL database and an automation script which modifies the data inside once a day. And these columns may have changed by an user manually. What is the best approach to make the system only update the automated data, not the manually edited ones? I mean yes, flagging the cell which is manually edited is one way to do it, but I want to know if there's another way to accomplish this? Just curiosity. BTW, the question is about cell values, not 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

  • Why using Fragments?

    - by ahmed_khan_89
    I have read the documentation and some other questions' threads about this topic and I don't really feel convinced; I don't see clearly the limits of use of this technique. Fragments are now seen as a Best Practice; every Activity should be basically a support for one or more Fragments and not call a layout directly. Fragments are created in order to: allow the Activity to use many fragments, to change between them, to reuse these units... == the Fragment is totally dependent to the Context of an activity , so if I need something generic that I can reuse and handle in many Activities, I can create my own custom layouts or Views ... I will not care about this additional Complexity Developing Layer that fragments would add. a better handling to different resolution == OK for tablets/phones in case of long process that we can show two (or more) fragments in the same Activity in Tablets, and one by one in phones. But why would I use fragments always ? handling callbacks to navigate between Fragments (i.e: if the user is Logged-in I show a fragment else I show another fragment). === Just try to see how many bugs facebook SDK Log-in have because of this, to understand that it is really (?) ... considering that an Android Application is based on Activities... Adding another life cycles in the Activity would be better to design an Application... I mean the modules, the scenarios, the data management and the connectivity would be better designed, in that way. === This is an answer of someone who's used to see the Android SDK and Android Framework with a Fragments vision. I don't think it's wrong, but I am not sure it will give good results... And it is really abstract... ==== Why would I complicate my life, coding more, in using them always? else, why is it a best practice if it's just a tool for some cases? what are these cases?

    Read the article

  • Testing complex compositions

    - by phlipsy
    I have a rather large collection of classes which check and mutate a given data structure. They can be composed via the composition pattern into arbitrarily complex tree-like structures. The final product contains a lot of these composed structures. My question is now: How can I test those? Albeit it is easy to test every single unit of these compositions, it is rather expensive to test the whole compositions in the following sense: Testing the correct layout of the composition-tree results in a huge number of test cases Changes in the compositions result in a very laborious review of every single test case What is the general guideline here?

    Read the article

  • Working in America from the UK

    - by thedixon
    I've been toying with the idea for the last few years and I figured it was about time to start asking questions about it! Here goes: I'm a Senior-level .NET/C# programmer from the UK, with 7 years of commercial experience in industry and looking to work over across the pond in the big ol' USA! This is with a view to live there on a permanent basis. My idea is to try and set up some interviews and go over there for a week to attend them, then I guess wait for responses in hopes they'd sponsor me for a working VISA. I'd like to know is there anyone out there with any experience of doing the same thing? Was it difficult finding work? Is there anything I should know before embarking on this route? How long did the transition take? Update: Considering the down votes, either I've posted this in the wrong place, or people really don't like my query. If so, please shed some light.

    Read the article

  • IXRepository and test problems

    - by Ridermansb
    Recently had a doubt about how and where to test repository methods. Let the following situation: I have an interface IRepository like this: public interface IRepository<T> where T: class, IEntity { IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression); // ... Omitted } And a generic implementation of IRepository public class Repository<T> : IRepository<T> where T : class, IEntity { public IQueryable<T> Query(Expression<Func<T, bool>> expression) { return All().Where(expression).AsQueryable(); } } This is an implementation base that can be used by any repository. It contains the basic implementation of my ORM. Some repositories have specific filters, in which case we will IEmployeeRepository with a specific filter: public interface IEmployeeRepository : IRepository<Employee> { IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees(); } And the implementation of IEmployeeRepository: public class EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee>, IEmployeeRepository // TODO: I have a dependency with ORM at this point in Repository<Employee>. How to solve? How to test the GetInactiveEmployees method { public IQueryable<Employee> GetInactiveEmployees() { return Query(p => p.Status != StatusEmployeeEnum.Active || p.StartDate < DateTime.Now); } } Questions Is right to inherit Repository<Employee>? The goal is to reuse code once all implementing IRepository already been made. If EmployeeRepository inherit only IEmployeeRepository, I have to literally copy and paste the code of Repository<T>. In our example, in EmployeeRepository : Repository<Employee> our Repository lies in our ORM layer. We have a dependency here with our ORM impossible to perform some unit test. How to create a unit test to ensure that the filter GetInactiveEmployees return all Employees in which the Status != Active and StartDate < DateTime.Now. I can not create a Fake/Mock of IEmployeeRepository because I would be testing? Need to test the actual implementation of GetInactiveEmployees. The complete code can be found on Github

    Read the article

  • Is this a valid implementation of the repository pattern?

    - by user1578653
    I've been reading up about the repository pattern, with a view to implementing it in my own application. Almost all examples I've found on the internet use some kind of existing framework rather than showing how to implement it 'from scratch'. Here's my first thoughts of how I might implement it - I was wondering if anyone could advise me on whether this is correct? I have two tables, named CONTAINERS and BITS. Each CONTAINER can contain any number of BITs. I represent them as two classes: class Container{ private $bits; private $id; //...and a property for each column in the table... public function __construct(){ $this->bits = array(); } public function addBit($bit){ $this->bits[] = $bit; } //...getters and setters... } class Bit{ //some properties, methods etc... } Each class will have a property for each column in its respective table. I then have a couple of 'repositories' which handle things to do with saving/retrieving these objects from the database: //repository to control saving/retrieving Containers from the database class ContainerRepository{ //inject the bit repository for use later public function __construct($bitRepo){ $this->bitRepo = $bitRepo; } public function getById($id){ //talk directly to Oracle here to all column data into the object //get all the bits in the container $bits = $this->bitRepo->getByContainerId($id); foreach($bits as $bit){ $container->addBit($bit); } //return an instance of Container } public function persist($container){ //talk directly to Oracle here to save it to the database //if its ID is NULL, create a new container in database, otherwise update the existing one //use BitRepository to save each of the Bits inside the Container $bitRepo = $this->bitRepo; foreach($container->bits as $bit){ $bitRepo->persist($bit); } } } //repository to control saving/retrieving Bits from the database class BitRepository{ public function getById($id){} public function getByContainerId($containerId){} public function persist($bit){} } Therefore, the code I would use to get an instance of Container from the database would be: $bitRepo = new BitRepository(); $containerRepo = new ContainerRepository($bitRepo); $container = $containerRepo->getById($id); Or to create a new one and save to the database: $bitRepo = new BitRepository(); $containerRepo = new ContainerRepository($bitRepo); $container = new Container(); $container->setSomeProperty(1); $bit = new Bit(); $container->addBit($bit); $containerRepo->persist($container); Can someone advise me as to whether I have implemented this pattern correctly? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • design for interruptable operations

    - by tpaksu
    I couldn't find a better topic but here it is; 1) When user clicks a button, code starts t work, 2) When another button is clicked, it would stop doing whatever it does and start to run the second button's code, 3) Or with not user interaction, an electrical power down detected from a connected device, so our software would cancel the current event and start doing the power down procedure. How is this design mostly applied to code? I mean "stop what you are doing" part? If you would say events, event handlers etc. how do you bind a condition to the event? and how do you tell the program without using laddered if's to end it's process? method1(); if (powerdown) return; method2(); if (powerdown) return; etc.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80  | Next Page >