Search Results

Search found 35442 results on 1418 pages for 'best approach'.

Page 8/1418 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • WCF Best Practice for "Overloaded" methods

    - by Nate Bross
    What is the best practice for emulating overloaded methods over WCF? Typically I might write an interface like this interface IInterface { MyType ReadMyType(int id); IEnumerable<MyType> ReadMyType(String name); IEnumerable<MyType> ReadMyType(String name, int maxResults); } What would this interface look like after you converted it to WCF?

    Read the article

  • Best way to store configuration settings outside of web.config

    - by Wil
    I'm starting to consider creating a class library that I want to make generic so others can use it. While planning it out, I came to thinking about the various configuration settings that I would need. Since the idea is to make it open/shared, I wanted to make things as easy on the end user as possible. What's the best way to setup configuration settings without making use of web.config/app.config?

    Read the article

  • highlite text parts with jquery, best practice

    - by helle
    Hey guys, i have a list of items containig names. then i have a eventlistener, which ckecks for keypress event. if the user types i.g. an A all names starting with an A should be viewed with the A bold. so all starting As should be bold. what is the best way using jquery to highlite only a part of a string? thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Are there any good references coparing Software Development CM best practices to IT CM best practice

    - by dkackman
    I have spent my career on the software development side of things and in the latter part have become more and more involved in the realm of Software Configuration Management. Now I am moving into an IT group and need to ramp up on CM practices from that standpoint. Are there any good references (books, websites, blogs whatever) out there comparing Software CM practices to IT CM practices? Basically I'm in learning mode and am trying compare things I already know from the software development side to things on the IT side.

    Read the article

  • <100% Test coverage - best practices in selecting test areas

    - by Paul Nathan
    Suppose you're working on a project and the time/money budget does not allow 100% coverage of all code/paths. It then follows that some critical subset of your code needs to be tested. Clearly a 'gut-check' approach can be used to test the system, where intuition and manual analysis can produce some sort of test coverage that will be 'ok'. However, I'm presuming that there are best practices/approaches/processes that identify critical elements up to some threshold and let you focus your test elements on those blocks. For example, one popular process for identifying failures in manufacturing is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. I'm looking for a process(es) to identify critical testing blocks in software.

    Read the article

  • Best practices for fixed-width processing in .NET

    - by jmgant
    I'm working a .NET web service that will be processing a text file with a relatively long, multilevel record format. Each record in the file represents a different entity; the record contains multiple sub-types. (The same record format is currently being processed by a COBOL job, if that gives you a better picture of what we're looking at). I've created a class structure (a DATA DIVISION if you will) to hold the input data. My question is, what best practices have you found for processing large, complex fixed-width files in .NET? My general approach will be to read the entire line into a string and then parse the data from the string into the classes I've created. But I'm not sure whether I'll get better results working with the characters in the string as an array, or with the string itself. I guess that's the specific question, string vs. char[], but I would appreciate any other pointers anyone has. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Best practice for controlling a busy GUI

    - by MPelletier
    Suppose a GUI (C#, WinForms) that performs work and is busy for several seconds. It will still have buttons that need to remain accessible, labels that will change, progress bars, etc. I'm using this approach currently to change the GUI when busy: //Generic delegates private delegate void SetControlValue<T>(T newValue); //... public void SetStatusLabelMessage(string message) { if (StatusLabel.InvokeRequired) StatusLabel.BeginInvoke(new SetControlValue<string>(SetStatusLabelMessage, object[] { message }); else StatusLabel.Text = message; } I've been using this like it's going out of style, yet I'm not quite certain this is proper. Creating the delegate (and reusing it) makes the whole thing cleaner (for me, at least), but I must know that I'm not creating a monster...

    Read the article

  • Silverlight layout Best Practices

    - by JustSmith
    I'm writing a fairly big interface using Silverlight. As I progress, the xaml file is getting fairly big and is becoming proportionally uglier. Questions Are there any resources out there to make the xaml more readable? For example, how would I display the order of attributes (e.g. height and Width first) so that it looks the most tidy? Another issue is that there are multiple ways to implement an interface with grids and stack panels. Is there a preferred approach when using one or the other? I am looking for advice and links to other resources that can be used as examples.

    Read the article

  • best practice on precedence of variable declaration and error handling in C

    - by guest
    is there an advantage in one of the following two approaches over the other? here it is first tested, whether fopen succeeds at all and then all the variable declarations take place, to ensure they are not carried out, since they mustn't have had to void func(void) { FILE *fd; if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ /* remaining code */ } this is just the opposite. all variable declarations take place, even if fopen fails void func(void) { FILE *fd; int a, b, c; float d, e, f; /* variable declarations */ if ((fd = fopen("blafoo", "+r")) == NULL ) { fprintf(stderr, "fopen() failed\n"); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } /* remaining code */ } does the second approach produce any additional cost, when fopen fails? would love to hear your thoughts!

    Read the article

  • best-practice on for loop's condition

    - by guest
    what is considered best-practice in this case? for (i=0; i<array.length(); ++i) or for (i=array.length(); i>0; --i) assuming i don't want to iterate from a certain direction, but rather over the bare length of the array. also, i don't plan to alter the array's size in the loop body. so, will the array.length() become constant during compilation? if not, then the second approach should be the one to go for..

    Read the article

  • A Simple Approach For Presenting With Code Samples

    - by Jesse Taber
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/GruffCode/archive/2013/07/31/a-simple-approach-for-presenting-with-code-samples.aspxI’ve been getting ready for a presentation and have been struggling a bit with the best way to show and execute code samples. I don’t present often (hardly ever), but when I do I like the presentation to have a lot of succinct and executable code snippets to help illustrate the points that I’m making. Depending on what the presentation is about, I might just want to build an entire sample application that I would run during the presentation. In other cases, however, building a full-blown application might not really be the best way to present the code. The presentation I’m working on now is for an open source utility library for dealing with dates and times. I could have probably cooked up a sample app for accepting date and time input and then contrived ways in which it could put the library through its paces, but I had trouble coming up with one app that would illustrate all of the various features of the library that I wanted to highlight. I finally decided that what I really needed was an approach that met the following criteria: Simple: I didn’t want the user interface or overall architecture of a sample application to serve as a distraction from the demonstration of the syntax of the library that the presentation is about. I want to be able to present small bits of code that are focused on accomplishing a single task. Several of these examples will look similar, and that’s OK. I want each sample to “stand on its own” and not rely much on external classes or methods (other than the library that is being presented, of course). “Debuggable” (not really a word, I know): I want to be able to easily run the sample with the debugger attached in Visual Studio should I want to step through any bits of code and show what certain values might be at run time. As far as I know this rules out something like LinqPad, though using LinqPad to present code samples like this is actually a very interesting idea that I might explore another time. Flexible and Selectable: I’m going to have lots of code samples to show, and I want to be able to just package them all up into a single project or module and have an easy way to just run the sample that I want on-demand. Since I’m presenting on a .NET framework library, one of the simplest ways in which I could execute some code samples would be to just create a Console application and use Console.WriteLine to output the pertinent info at run time. This gives me a “no frills” harness from which to run my code samples, and I just hit ‘F5’ to run it with the debugger. This satisfies numbers 1 and 2 from my list of criteria above, but item 3 is a little harder. By default, just running a console application is going to execute the ‘main’ method, and then terminate the program after all code is executed. If I want to have several different code samples and run them one at a time, it would be cumbersome to keep swapping the code I want in and out of the ‘main’ method of the console application. What I really want is an easy way to keep the console app running throughout the whole presentation and just have it run the samples I want when I want. I could setup a simple Windows Forms or WPF desktop application with buttons for the different samples, but then I’m getting away from my first criteria of keeping things as simple as possible. Infinite Loops To The Rescue I found a way to have a simple console application satisfy all three of my requirements above, and it involves using an infinite loop and some Console.ReadLine calls that will give the user an opportunity to break out and exit the program. (All programs that need to run until they are closed explicitly (or crash!) likely use similar constructs behind the scenes. Create a new Windows Forms project, look in the ‘Program.cs’ that gets generated, and then check out the docs for the Application.Run method that it calls.). Here’s how the main method might look: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 6: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 7: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 8: { 9: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 10: break; 11: } 12: 13: } while (true); 14: } The idea here is the app prompts me for the command I want to run, or I can type in ‘exit’ to break out of the loop and let the application close. The only trick now is to create a set of commands that map to each of the code samples that I’m going to want to run. Each sample is already encapsulated in a single public method in a separate class, so I could just write a big switch statement or create a hashtable/dictionary that maps command text to an Action that will invoke the proper method, but why re-invent the wheel? CLAP For Your Own Presentation I’ve blogged about the CLAP library before, and it turns out that it’s a great fit for satisfying criteria #3 from my list above. CLAP lets you decorate methods in a class with an attribute and then easily invoke those methods from within a console application. CLAP was designed to take the arguments passed into the console app from the command line and parse them to determine which method to run and what arguments to pass to that method, but there’s no reason you can’t re-purpose it to accept command input from within the infinite loop defined above and invoke the corresponding method. Here’s how you might define a couple of different methods to contain two different code samples that you want to run during your presentation: 1: public static class CodeSamples 2: { 3: [Verb(Aliases="one")] 4: public static void SampleOne() 5: { 6: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 1"); 7: } 8:   9: [Verb(Aliases="two")] 10: public static void SampleTwo() 11: { 12: Console.WriteLine("This is sample 2"); 13: } 14: } A couple of things to note about the sample above: I’m using static methods. You don’t actually need to use static methods with CLAP, but the syntax ends up being a bit simpler and static methods happen to lend themselves well to the “one self-contained method per code sample” approach that I want to use. The methods are decorated with a ‘Verb’ attribute. This tells CLAP that they are eligible targets for commands. The “Aliases” argument lets me give them short and easy-to-remember aliases that can be used to invoke them. By default, CLAP just uses the full method name as the command name, but with aliases you can simply the usage a bit. I’m not using any parameters. CLAP’s main feature is its ability to parse out arguments from a command line invocation of a console application and automatically pass them in as parameters to the target methods. My code samples don’t need parameters ,and honestly having them would complicate giving the presentation, so this is a good thing. You could use this same approach to invoke methods with parameters, but you’d have a couple of things to figure out. When you invoke a .NET application from the command line, Windows will parse the arguments and pass them in as a string array (called ‘args’ in the boilerplate console project Program.cs). The parsing that gets done here is smart enough to deal with things like treating strings in double quotes as one argument, and you’d have to re-create that within your infinite loop if you wanted to use parameters. I plan on either submitting a pull request to CLAP to add this capability or maybe just making a small utility class/extension method to do it and posting that here in the future. So I now have a simple class with static methods to contain my code samples, and an infinite loop in my ‘main’ method that can accept text commands. Wiring this all up together is pretty easy: 1: static void Main(string[] args) 2: { 3: do 4: { 5: try 6: { 7: Console.Write("Enter command or 'exit' to quit: > "); 8: var command = Console.ReadLine(); 9: if ((command ?? string.Empty).Equals("exit", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase)) 10: { 11: Console.WriteLine("Quitting."); 12: break; 13: } 14:   15: Parser.Run<CodeSamples>(new[] { command }); 16: Console.WriteLine("---------------------------------------------------------"); 17: } 18: catch (Exception ex) 19: { 20: Console.Error.WriteLine("Error: " + ex.Message); 21: } 22:   23: } while (true); 24: } Note that I’m now passing the ‘CodeSamples’ class into the CLAP ‘Parser.Run’ as a type argument. This tells CLAP to inspect that class for methods that might be able to handle the commands passed in. I’m also throwing in a little “----“ style line separator and some basic error handling (because I happen to know that some of the samples are going to throw exceptions for demonstration purposes) and I’m good to go. Now during my presentation I can just have the console application running the whole time with the debugger attached and just type in the alias of the code sample method that I want to run when I want to run it.

    Read the article

  • Best approach for utility class library using Visual Studio

    - by gregsdennis
    I have a collection of classes that I commonly (but not always) use when developing WPF applications. The trouble I have is that if I want to use only a subset of the classes, I have three options: Distribute the entire DLL. While this approach makes code maintenance easier, it does require distributing a large DLL for minimal code functionality. Copy the classes I need to the current application. This approach solves the problem of not distributing unused code, but completely eliminates code maintenance. Maintain each class/feature in a separate project. This solves both problems from above, but then I have dramatically increased the number of files that need to be distributed, and it bloats my VS solution with tiny projects. Ideally, I'd like a combination of 1 & 3: A single project that contains all of my utility classes but builds to a DLL containing only the classes that are used in the current application. Are there any other common approaches that I haven't considered? Is there any way to do what I want? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Variant Management– Which Approach fits for my Product?

    - by C. Chadwick
    Jürgen Kunz – Director Product Development – Oracle ORACLE Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG Introduction In a difficult economic environment, it is important for companies to understand the customer requirements in detail and to address them in their products. Customer specific products, however, usually cause increased costs. Variant management helps to find the best combination of standard components and custom components which balances customer’s product requirements and product costs. Depending on the type of product, different approaches to variant management will be applied. For example the automotive product “car” or electronic/high-tech products like a “computer”, with a pre-defined set of options to be combined in the individual configuration (so called “Assembled to Order” products), require a different approach to products in heavy machinery, which are (at least partially) engineered in a customer specific way (so-called “Engineered-to Order” products). This article discusses different approaches to variant management. Starting with the simple Bill of Material (BOM), this article presents three different approaches to variant management, which are provided by Agile PLM. Single level BOM and Variant BOM The single level BOM is the basic form of the BOM. The product structure is defined using assemblies and single parts. A particular product is thus represented by a fixed product structure. As soon as you have to manage product variants, the single level BOM is no longer sufficient. A variant BOM will be needed to manage product variants. The variant BOM is sometimes referred to as 150% BOM, since a variant BOM contains more parts and assemblies than actually needed to assemble the (final) product – just 150% of the parts You can evolve the variant BOM from the single level BOM by replacing single nodes with a placeholder node. The placeholder in this case represents the possible variants of a part or assembly. Product structure nodes, which are part of any product, are so-called “Must-Have” parts. “Optional” parts can be omitted in the final product. Additional attributes allow limiting the quantity of parts/assemblies which can be assigned at a certain position in the Variant BOM. Figure 1 shows the variant BOM of Agile PLM. Figure 1 Variant BOM in Agile PLM During the instantiation of the Variant BOM, the placeholders get replaced by specific variants of the parts and assemblies. The selection of the desired or appropriate variants is either done step by step by the user or by applying pre-defined configuration rules. As a result of the instantiation, an independent BOM will be created (Figure 2). Figure 2 Instantiated BOM in Agile PLM This kind of Variant BOM  can be used for „Assembled –To-Order“ type products as well as for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. In case of “Assembled –To-Order” type products, typically the instantiation is done automatically with pre-defined configuration rules. For „Engineered- to-Order“-type products at least part of the product is selected manually to make use of customized parts/assemblies, that have been engineered according to the specific custom requirements. Template BOM The Template BOM is used for „Engineered-to-Order“-type products. It is another type of variant BOM. The engineer works in a flexible environment which allows him to build the most creative solutions. At the same time the engineer shall be guided to re-use existing solutions and it shall be assured that product variants of the same product family share the same base structure. The template BOM defines the basic structure of products belonging to the same product family. Let’s take a gearbox as an example. The customer specific configuration of the gearbox is influenced by several parameters (e.g. rpm range, transmitted torque), which are defined in the customer’s requirement document.  Figure 3 shows part of a Template BOM (yellow) and its relation to the product family hierarchy (blue).  Figure 3 Template BOM Every component of the Template BOM has links to the variants that have been engineeried so far for the component (depending on the level in the Template BOM, they are product variants, Assembly Variant or single part variants). This library of solutions, the so-called solution space, can be used by the engineers to build new product variants. In the best case, the engineer selects an existing solution variant, such as the gearbox shown in figure 3. When the existing variants do not fulfill the specific requirements, a new variant will be engineered. This new variant must be compliant with the given Template BOM. If we look at the gearbox in figure 3  it must consist of a transmission housing, a Connecting Plate, a set of Gears and a Planetary transmission – pre-assumed that all components are must have components. The new variant will enhance the solution space and is automatically available for re-use in future variants. The result of the instantiation of the Template BOM is a stand-alone BOM which represents the customer specific product variant. Modular BOM The concept of the modular BOM was invented in the automotive industry. Passenger cars are so-called „Assembled-to-Order“-products. The customer first selects the specific equipment of the car (so-called specifications) – for instance engine, audio equipment, rims, color. Based on this information the required parts will be determined and the customer specific car will be assembled. Certain combinations of specification are not available for the customer, because they are not feasible from technical perspective (e.g. a convertible with sun roof) or because the combination will not be offered for marketing reasons (e.g. steel rims with a sports line car). The modular BOM (yellow structure in figure 4) is defined in the context of a specific product family (in the sample it is product family „Speedstar“). It is the same modular BOM for the different types of cars of the product family (e.g. sedan, station wagon). The assembly or single parts of the car (blue nodes in figure 4) are assigned at the leaf level of the modular BOM. The assignment of assembly and parts to the modular BOM is enriched with a configuration rule (purple elements in figure 4). The configuration rule defines the conditions to use a specific assembly or single part. The configuration rule is valid in the context of a type of car (green elements in figure 4). Color specific parts are assigned to the color independent parts via additional configuration rules (grey elements in figure 4). The configuration rules use Boolean operators to connect the specifications. Additional consistency rules (constraints) may be used to define invalid combinations of specification (so-called exclusions). Furthermore consistency rules may be used to add specifications to the set of specifications. For instance it is important that a car with diesel engine always is build using the high capacity battery.  Figure 4 Modular BOM The calculation of the car configuration consists of several steps. First the consistency rules (constraints) are applied. Resulting from that specification might be added automatically. The second step will determine the assemblies and single parts for the complete structure of the modular BOM, by evaluating the configuration rules in the context of the current type of car. The evaluation of the rules for one component in the modular BOM might result in several rules being fulfilled. In this case the most specific rule (typically the longest rule) will win. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to add a specific variant to the modular BOM without the need to change any other configuration rules.  As a result the whole set of configuration rules is easy to maintain. Finally the color specific assemblies respective parts will be determined and the configuration is completed. Figure 5 Calculated Car Configuration The result of the car configuration is shown in figure 5. It shows the list of assemblies respective single parts (blue components in figure 5), which are required to build the customer specific car. Summary There are different approaches to variant management. Three different approaches have been presented in this article. At the end of the day, it is the type of the product which decides about the best approach.  For „Assembled to Order“-type products it is very likely that you can define the configuration rules and calculate the product variant automatically. Products of type „Engineered-to-Order“ ,however, need to be engineered. Nevertheless in the majority of cases, part of the product structure can be generated automatically in a similar way to „Assembled to Order“-tape products.  That said it is important first to analyze the product portfolio, in order to define the best approach to variant management.

    Read the article

  • The Iron Bird Approach

    - by David Paquette
    It turns out that designing software is not so different than designing commercial aircraft.  I just finished watching a video that talked about the approach that Bombardier is taking in designing the new C Series aircraft.  I was struck by the similarities to agile approaches to software design.  In the video, Bombardier describes how they are using an Iron Bird to work through a number of design questions in advance of ever having a version of the aircraft that can ever be flown.  The Iron Bird is a life size replica of the plane.  Based on the name, I would assume the plane is built in a very heavy material that could never fly.  Using this replica, Bombardier is able to valid certain assumptions such as the length of each wire in the electric system.  They are also able to confirm that some parts are working properly (like the rudders).  They even go as far as to have a complete replica of the cockpit.  This allows Bombardier to put pilots in the cockpit to run through simulated take-off and landing sequences. The basic tenant of the approach seems to be Validate your design early with working prototypes Get feedback from users early, well in advance of finishing the end product   In software development, we tend to think of ourselves as special.  I often tell people that it is difficult to draw comparisons to building items in the physical world (“Building software is nothing like building a sky scraper”).  After watching this video, I am wondering if designing/building software is actually a lot like designing/building commercial aircraft.   Watch the video here (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/video/video-selling-the-c-series/article4400616/)

    Read the article

  • How do i approach this collision model?

    - by PeeS
    this is the game level prototype i have already implemented. It has few objects per room to allow me to finally add some collision detection/response code into it. VIDEO As you can probably see, every object inside has it's own AABB, even the room itself has AABB. So a player is like 'inside the Room AABB'. My player will be exactly inside the room, so he would have to collide correctly with those AABBs, so that when he hits any of those objects inside he get's a proper collision response from those AABB's. Now i would like to hear from you what kind of collision approach should i choose in here? How do i approach this kind of stuff: AABB to AABB collision detection then when this is positive go with AABB - Tri to find proper plane normal and calculate response ? AABB to AABB then when positive go with AABB - AABB Side check to find proper proper plane normal and calculate response? Anything else? How do you do this ? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the best approach for deploying apps to companies

    - by Supercell
    What is the best approach for the following scenario: 1) A publicly available app (available in app stores) which is used by end users to make use of services offered by multiple companies. 2) These companies maintain their services also using a mobile app. I'm not sure on how to solve the second part. Having one app for both enduser and admin functionality, secured by username/password doesn't sound like a good idea. This would leave the only option of developing a separate admin application for the companies. What is the best approach to deploy "admin" like mobile apps to companies only, for Android, iOS and Windows Phone? Some additional information: Public App ---- Servers ----- Multiple Company Apps The public app shows all companies offering their services. An end user uses the public app to order something from a specific company. The order is sent to our servers. Our servers send the order to the associated company. This order is displayed on the company's admin app and given the option to accept the order.

    Read the article

  • Best practices for using the Entity Framework with WPF DataBinding

    - by Ken Smith
    I'm in the process of building my first real WPF application (i.e., the first intended to be used by someone besides me), and I'm still wrapping my head around the best way to do things in WPF. It's a fairly simple data access application using the still-fairly-new Entity Framework, but I haven't been able to find a lot of guidance online for the best way to use these two technologies (WPF and EF) together. So I thought I'd toss out how I'm approaching it, and see if anyone has any better suggestions. I'm using the Entity Framework with SQL Server 2008. The EF strikes me as both much more complicated than it needs to be, and not yet mature, but Linq-to-SQL is apparently dead, so I might as well use the technology that MS seems to be focusing on. This is a simple application, so I haven't (yet) seen fit to build a separate data layer around it. When I want to get at data, I use fairly simple Linq-to-Entity queries, usually straight from my code-behind, e.g.: var families = from family in entities.Family.Include("Person") orderby family.PrimaryLastName, family.Tag select family; Linq-to-Entity queries return an IOrderedQueryable result, which doesn't automatically reflect changes in the underlying data, e.g., if I add a new record via code to the entity data model, the existence of this new record is not automatically reflected in the various controls referencing the Linq query. Consequently, I'm throwing the results of these queries into an ObservableCollection, to capture underlying data changes: familyOC = new ObservableCollection<Family>(families.ToList()); I then map the ObservableCollection to a CollectionViewSource, so that I can get filtering, sorting, etc., without having to return to the database. familyCVS.Source = familyOC; familyCVS.View.Filter = new Predicate<object>(ApplyFamilyFilter); familyCVS.View.SortDescriptions.Add(new System.ComponentModel.SortDescription("PrimaryLastName", System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection.Ascending)); familyCVS.View.SortDescriptions.Add(new System.ComponentModel.SortDescription("Tag", System.ComponentModel.ListSortDirection.Ascending)); I then bind the various controls and what-not to that CollectionViewSource: <ListBox DockPanel.Dock="Bottom" Margin="5,5,5,5" Name="familyList" ItemsSource="{Binding Source={StaticResource familyCVS}, Path=., Mode=TwoWay}" IsSynchronizedWithCurrentItem="True" ItemTemplate="{StaticResource familyTemplate}" SelectionChanged="familyList_SelectionChanged" /> When I need to add or delete records/objects, I manually do so from both the entity data model, and the ObservableCollection: private void DeletePerson(Person person) { entities.DeleteObject(person); entities.SaveChanges(); personOC.Remove(person); } I'm generally using StackPanel and DockPanel controls to position elements. Sometimes I'll use a Grid, but it seems hard to maintain: if you want to add a new row to the top of your grid, you have to touch every control directly hosted by the grid to tell it to use a new line. Uggh. (Microsoft has never really seemed to get the DRY concept.) I almost never use the VS WPF designer to add, modify or position controls. The WPF designer that comes with VS is sort of vaguely helpful to see what your form is going to look like, but even then, well, not really, especially if you're using data templates that aren't binding to data that's available at design time. If I need to edit my XAML, I take it like a man and do it manually. Most of my real code is in C# rather than XAML. As I've mentioned elsewhere, entirely aside from the fact that I'm not yet used to "thinking" in it, XAML strikes me as a clunky, ugly language, that also happens to come with poor designer and intellisense support, and that can't be debugged. Uggh. Consequently, whenever I can see clearly how to do something in C# code-behind that I can't easily see how to do in XAML, I do it in C#, with no apologies. There's been plenty written about how it's a good practice to almost never use code-behind in WPF page (say, for event-handling), but so far at least, that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why should I do something in an ugly, clunky language with god-awful syntax, an astonishingly bad editor, and virtually no type safety, when I can use a nice, clean language like C# that has a world-class editor, near-perfect intellisense, and unparalleled type safety? So that's where I'm at. Any suggestions? Am I missing any big parts of this? Anything that I should really think about doing differently?

    Read the article

  • Passing integer lists in a sql query, best practices

    - by Artiom Chilaru
    I'm currently looking at ways to pass lists of integers in a SQL query, and try to decide which of them is best in which situation, what are the benefots of each, and what are the pitfalls, what should be avoided :) Right now I know of 3 ways that we currently use in our application. 1) Table valued parameter: Create a new Table Valued Parameter in sql server: CREATE TYPE [dbo].[TVP_INT] AS TABLE( [ID] [int] NOT NULL ) Then run the query against it: using (var conn = new SqlConnection(DataContext.GetDefaultConnectionString)) { var comm = conn.CreateCommand(); comm.CommandType = CommandType.Text; comm.CommandText = @" UPDATE DA SET [tsLastImportAttempt] = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP FROM [Account] DA JOIN @values IDs ON DA.ID = IDs.ID"; comm.Parameters.Add(new SqlParameter("values", downloadResults.Select(d => d.ID).ToDataTable()) { TypeName = "TVP_INT" }); conn.Open(); comm.ExecuteScalar(); } The major disadvantages of this method is the fact that Linq doesn't support table valued params (if you create an SP with a TVP param, linq won't be able to run it) :( 2) Convert the list to Binary and use it in Linq! This is a bit better.. Create an SP, and you can run it within linq :) To do this, the SP will have an IMAGE parameter, and we'll be using a user defined function (udf) to convert this to a table.. We currently have implementations of this function written in C++ and in assembly, both have pretty much the same performance :) Basically, each integer is represented by 4 bytes, and passed to the SP. In .NET we have an extension method that convers an IEnumerable to a byte array The extension method: public static Byte[] ToBinary(this IEnumerable intList) { return ToBinaryEnum(intList).ToArray(); } private static IEnumerable<Byte> ToBinaryEnum(IEnumerable<Int32> intList) { IEnumerator<Int32> marker = intList.GetEnumerator(); while (marker.MoveNext()) { Byte[] result = BitConverter.GetBytes(marker.Current); Array.Reverse(result); foreach (byte b in result) yield return b; } } The SP: CREATE PROCEDURE [Accounts-UpdateImportAttempts] @values IMAGE AS BEGIN UPDATE DA SET [tsLastImportAttempt] = CURRENT_TIMESTAMP FROM [Account] DA JOIN dbo.udfIntegerArray(@values, 4) IDs ON DA.ID = IDs.Value4 END And we can use it by running the SP directly, or in any linq query we need using (var db = new DataContext()) { db.Accounts_UpdateImportAttempts(downloadResults.Select(d => d.ID).ToBinary()); // or var accounts = db.Accounts .Where(a => db.udfIntegerArray(downloadResults.Select(d => d.ID).ToBinary(), 4) .Select(i => i.Value4) .Contains(a.ID)); } This method has the benefit of using compiled queries in linq (which will have the same sql definition, and query plan, so will also be cached), and can be used in SPs as well. Both these methods are theoretically unlimited, so you can pass millions of ints at a time :) 3) The simple linq .Contains() It's a more simple approach, and is perfect in simple scenarios. But is of course limited by this. using (var db = new DataContext()) { var accounts = db.Accounts .Where(a => downloadResults.Select(d => d.ID).Contains(a.ID)); } The biggest drawback of this method is that each integer in the downloadResults variable will be passed as a separate int.. In this case, the query is limited by sql (max allowed parameters in a sql query, which is a couple of thousand, if I remember right). So I'd like to ask.. What do you think is the best of these, and what other methods and approaches have I missed?

    Read the article

  • Programming methodologies at stackoverflow

    - by Prototype Stark
    I am in the middle of starting up a software company where we would use ASP.NET MVC and ASP.NET WebAPI extensively at shop. We will be a group of 4 and no more than 10 will work on any particular project at any point in time(these are ground rules). I would like to know, what programming methodologies best suit a small(guerilla) team. Specifically, I would also like to know which ones are being used at famous ASP.NET MVC shops like Stackoverflow. The ones I know are: Scrum and Waterfall(I know its bad). But what's the recommended way of development for smaller, group of 9-10 team. Also, will Test Driven Development help such a team in producing quality software? Are there any other techniques the team will have to know to be good at producing quality software?

    Read the article

  • Best practices for cross platform git config?

    - by Bas Bossink
    Context A number of my application user configuration files are kept in a git repository for easy sharing across multiple machines and multiple platforms. Amongst these configuration files is .gitconfig which contains the following settings for handling the carriage return linefeed characters [core] autocrlf = true safecrlf = false Problem These settings also gets applied on a GNU/Linux platform which causes obscure errors. Question What are some best practices for handling these platform specific differences in configuration files? Proposed solution I realize this problem could be solved by having a branch for each platform and keeping the common stuff in master and merging with the platform branch when master moves forward. I'm wondering if there are any easier solutions to this problem?

    Read the article

  • PHP Flush: How Often and Best Practises

    - by Cory Dee
    I just finished reading this post: http://developer.yahoo.com/performance/rules.html#flush and have already implemented a flush after the top portion of my page loads (head, css, top banner/search/nav). Is there any performance hit in flushing? Is there such a thing as doing it too often? What are the best practices? If I am going to hit an external API for data, would it make sense to flush before hand so that the user isn't waiting on that data to come back, and can at least get some data before hand? Thanks to everyone in advance.

    Read the article

  • Best practices in ASP.Net code behind pages.

    - by patricks418
    Hi, I am an experienced developer but I am new to web application development. Now I am in charge of developing a new web application and I could really use some input from experienced web developers out there. I'd like to understand exactly what experienced web developers do in the code-behind pages. At first I thought it was best to have a rule that all the database access and business logic should be performed in classes external to the code-behind pages. My thought was that only logic necessary for the web form would be performed in the code-behind. I still think that all the business logic should be performed in other classes but I'm beginning to think it would be alright if the code-behind had access to the database to query it directly rather than having to call other classes to receive a dataset or collection back. Any input would be appreciated.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >