Search Results

Search found 674 results on 27 pages for 'refactor'.

Page 8/27 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

• Tool(s) to lower the friction of programming against Interfaces in Visual Studio C#?

  - by John

  Hi I am a relatively new user of Visual Studio and I am trying "program against interfaces". I can see that when I create a class I can "Extract Interface" from the Refactor menu but you seem to only get one shot at this. ie. If I add a read only property FullName to my Customer class I would like to be able to right click and update the interface. At the moment I can only create a new interface from the Refactor menu. I want to update the interface I have already created not create new one. So the kind of tool I would be looking for would display check boxes for all valid members of the class with those already in the interface checked. It would also be handy to be able to to create the initial interface file in a different project (in the same solution), and for the tool to keep track of this. Does such a tool / add in / menu item exist (other than Ctrl C / V)? Thanks, John

  Read the article

• ASP.NET MVC 2 AJAX dilemma: Lose Models concept or create unmanageable JavaScript

  - by Slightly Frustrated

  Hi, Ok, let's assume we are working with ASP.NET MVC 2 (latest and greatest preview) and we want to create AJAX user interface with jQuery. So what are our real options here? Option 1 - Pass Json from the Controller to the view, and then the view submits Json back to the controller. This means (in the order given): User opens some View (let's say - /Invoices/January) which has to visualize a list of data (e.g. <IEnumerable<X.Y.Z.Models.Invoice>>) Controller retrieves the Model from the repository (assuming we are using repository pattern). Controller creates a new instance of a class which we will serialize to Json. The reasaon we do this, is because the model may not be serializable (circular reference ftl) Controller populates the soon-to-be-serialized class with data Controller serializes the class to Json and passes it the view. User does some change and submits the 'form' The View submits back Json to the controller The Controller now must 'manually' validate the input, because the Json passed does not bind to a Model See, if our View is communicating to the controller via Json, we lose the Model validation, which IMHO is incredible disadvantage. In this case, forget about data annotations and stuff. Option 2 - Ok, the alternative of the first approach is to pass the Models to the Views, which is the default behavior in the template when you start a new project. We pass a strong typed model to the view The view renders the appropriate html and javascript, sticking to the model property names. This is important! The user submits the form. If we stick to the model names, when we .serialize() the form and submit it to the controller it will map to a model. There is no Json mapping. The submitted form directly binds to a strongly typed model, hence, we can use the model validation. E.g. we keep the business logic where it should be. Problem with this approach is, if we refactor some of the Models (change property names, types, etc), the javascript we wrote would become invalid. We will have to manually refactor the scripting and hope we don't miss something. There is no way you can test it either. Ok, the question is - how to write an AJAX front end, which keeps the business logic validation in the model (e.g. controller passes and receives a Model type), but in the same time doesn't screw up the javascript and html when we refactor the model?

  Read the article

• Extracting an interface from .NEt System classes

  - by Thomas

  When using Visual Studio it is easy to extract an interface from a class that I have written myself. I right click on the class and select 'Refactor' then select 'Extract Interface'. Let's assume for a second that I wanted to create a ConfigurationManager wrapper and write some tests around it. A quick way to do that would be to extract an interface from ConfigurationManager by right clicking it, then 'Go To Definition' and then from inside the class select 'Refactor' then select 'Extract Interface'. Then I would simply create my wrapper class, inherit from my newly created interface, and then implement it and I have a great starting point for my wrapper class. However, extracting an interface from any .NET system classes is not possible, probably because it's just meta data about the classes and not the classes themselves (or I am doing it wrong). Is there an easy way to do what I am trying to accomplish? I want to ensure I am not wasting time typing what I don't need to be typing. Thanks

  Read the article

• alternative to check, whether a value is in a set

  - by stanleyxu2005

  Hi All, I have the following code. It looks ugly, if the value equals to one of the following value then do something. var Value: Word; begin Value := 30000; if (Value = 30000) or (Value = 40000) or (Value = 1) then do_something; end; I want to refactor the code as follows: var Value: Word; begin Value := 30000; if (Value in [1, 30000, 40000]) then // Does not work do_something; end; However, the refactored code does not work. I assume that a valid set in Delphi accepts only elements with type byte. If there any good alternative to refactor my original code (besides using case)?

  Read the article

• Generate accessors in Visual C++ 2008

  - by gramm

  Hi, I'm trying to generate the accessors and mutators for my variables automatically, but just can't find a way. I tried the right-click/refactor... solution, but the refactor item doesn't appear. I'm not in the mood right now to learn how to write a macro to do this, and I don't have the money to buy a commercial solution (internship student). Any help is welcome, I don't feel like writing all my get/set by hand. note : it's C++ so the {get;set} syntax doesn't work (or does it ?).

  Read the article

• Refactoring method that was previously injected with implement

  - by ryber

  Greetings, I'm trying to override or extend the Element.show() and .hide() methods in mootools in order to add some WAI-Aria toggling. I was trying to use the Class.Refactor() method like this: Element = Class.refactor(Element, { show: function(displayString) { result = this.previous(displayString); // Do my thing return result; }, hide: function() { result = this.previous(); // Do my thing return result; } }); however, this is not working, previous is null and I think the reason is that Mootools injects those methods through Element.implement. So the methods are not native? I have figured out how to completely replace .show and .hide but I would like to retain all of their existing functionality and just add to it. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Role of "Refactoring" in good programming pratices?

  - by Niranjan Kala

  I have learned in Agile Development that: Refactoring is the process of clarifying and simplifying the design of existing code, without changing its behavior. I have heard about some GUI refactoring tools like resharper and DevExpress Refactor Pro! Here is my Questions: Question 1: how does it takes place in the Software development process and How far it effects the system? Question 2: Is Refactoring using these tools really fast the process of development/ maintenance?

  Read the article

• Code refactoring with Visual Studio 2010 Part-2

  - by Jalpesh P. Vadgama

  In previous post I have written about Extract Method Code refactoring option. In this post I am going to some other code refactoring features of Visual Studio 2010.  Renaming variables and methods is one of the most difficult task for a developer. Normally we do like this. First we will rename method or variable and then we will find all the references then do remaining over that stuff. This will be become difficult if your variable or method are referenced at so many files and so many place. But once you use refactor menu rename it will be bit Easy. I am going to use same code which I have created in my previous post. I am just once again putting that code here for your reference. using System; namespace CodeRefractoring { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { string firstName = "Jalpesh"; string lastName = "Vadgama"; Print(firstName, lastName); } private static void Print(string firstName, string lastName) { Console.WriteLine(string.Format("FirstName:{0}", firstName)); Console.WriteLine(string.Format("LastName:{0}", lastName)); Console.ReadLine(); } } } Now I want to rename print method in this code. To rename the method you can select method name and then select Refactor-> Rename . Once I selected Print method and then click on rename a dialog box will appear like following. Now I am renaming this Print method to PrintMyName like following.   Now once you click OK a dialog will appear with preview of code like following. It will show preview of code. Now once you click apply. You code will be changed like following. using System; namespace CodeRefractoring { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { string firstName = "Jalpesh"; string lastName = "Vadgama"; PrintMyName(firstName, lastName); } private static void PrintMyName(string firstName, string lastName) { Console.WriteLine(string.Format("FirstName:{0}", firstName)); Console.WriteLine(string.Format("LastName:{0}", lastName)); Console.ReadLine(); } } } So that’s it. This will work in multiple files also. Hope you liked it.. Stay tuned for more.. Till that Happy Programming.

  Read the article

• The Red Gate Guide to SQL Server Team based Development Free e-book

  - by Mladen Prajdic

  After about 6 months of work, the new book I've coauthored with Grant Fritchey (Blog|Twitter), Phil Factor (Blog|Twitter) and Alex Kuznetsov (Blog|Twitter) is out. They're all smart folks I talk to online and this book is packed with good ideas backed by years of experience. The book contains a good deal of information about things you need to think of when doing any kind of multi person database development. Although it's meant for SQL Server, the principles can be applied to any database platform out there. In the book you will find information on: writing readable code, documenting code, source control and change management, deploying code between environments, unit testing, reusing code, searching and refactoring your code base. I've written chapter 5 about Database testing and chapter 11 about SQL Refactoring. In the database testing chapter (chapter 5) I cover why you should test your database, why it is a good idea to have a database access interface composed of stored procedures, views and user defined functions, what and how to test. I talk about how there are many testing methods like black and white box testing, unit and integration testing, error and stress testing and why and how you should do all those. Sometimes you have to convince management to go for testing in the development lifecycle so I give some pointers and tips how to do that. Testing databases is a bit different from testing object oriented code in a way that to have independent unit tests you need to rollback your code after each test. The chapter shows you ways to do this and also how to avoid it. At the end I show how to test various database objects and how to test access to them. In the SQL Refactoring chapter (chapter 11) I cover why refactor and where to even begin refactoring. I also who you a way to achieve a set based mindset to solve SQL problems which is crucial to good SQL set based programming and a few commonly seen problems to refactor. These problems include: using functions on columns in the where clause, SELECT * problems, long stored procedure with many input parameters, one subquery per condition in the select statement, cursors are good for anything problem, using too large data types everywhere and using your data in code for business logic anti-pattern. You can read more about it and download it here: The Red Gate Guide to SQL Server Team-based Development Hope you like it and send me feedback if you wish too.

  Read the article

• The Primary Cause of Failed IT Projects

  - by Paul Nielsen

  During my career I’ve been a part of dozens of projects. Some I was on from the start, most I came in to help bail out. Some went smooth and were a pleasure to build and maintain and some projects failed (failed being broadly defined as projects that were not completed, or were completed but were a horrid mess – very complex, impossible to maintain, refactor, and a royal pain to keep running.) While there are a number of factors that can contribute to a failed project, in my career it seems the primary...(read more)

  Read the article

• .NET Reflector Pro to the rescue

  Almost all applications have to interface with components or modules written by somebody else, for which you don't have the source code. This is fine until things go wrong, but when you need to refactor your code and you keep getting strange exceptions, you'll start to wish you could place breakpoints in someone else's code and step through it. Now, of course, you can, as Geoffrey Braaf discovered.

  Read the article

• The Primary Cause of Failed IT Projects

  - by Paul Nielsen

  During my career I’ve been a part of dozens of projects. Some I was on from the start, most I came in to help bail out. Some went smooth and were a pleasure to build and maintain and some projects failed (failed being broadly defined as projects that were not completed, or were completed but were a horrid mess – very complex, impossible to maintain, refactor, and a royal pain to keep running.) While there are a number of factors that can contribute to a failed project, in my career it seems the primary...(read more)

  Read the article

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

  - by Ingó Vals

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

  Read the article

• Building a StackOverflow inspired Knowledge Exchange Three Tiers to MVC – Hooray – Physical Separat

  In this article we will start to address some of the flaws in our original design. The first step will be to refactor towards logical separation of our code. Then we can analyze the code to see what the remaining issues are. Then we will analyze the pros and cons of this design.

  Read the article

• Know more about Assembly

  - by Ralax

  If you want to know what an assembly does, you can use Reflector to refactor the assembly and check the codes. If you want to know why binding assembly failed, you can use Assembly Binding Log Viewer to check it. Also you should set HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Fusion\ForceLog registry value to 1 . When the assembly is used, you want to know what the assembly uses, you can use Process Explorer ....(read more)

  Read the article

• How to use Dart Editor

  How to use Dart Editor Dart Editor, part of the open-source Dart project, is a light weight and productive editor for Dart. It can help developers editor, refactor, and debug Dart apps. Watch this video to learn more about Dart Editor and its many features to help developers be more productive building high performance web apps. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 104 2 ratings Time: 05:34 More in Science & Technology

  Read the article

• Circular class dependency

  - by shad0w

  Is it bad design to have 2 classes which need each other? I'm writing a small game in which I have a GameEngine class which has got a few GameState objects. To access several rendering methods, these GameState objects also need to know the GameEngine class - so it's a circular dependency. Would you call this bad design? I am just asking, because I am not quite sure and at this time I am still able to refactor these things.

  Read the article

• Instant Rename and Rename Refactoring

  - by Petr

  During the last weeks I have got  a few questions about rename refactoring and some users also complain to me that the refactoring in NetBeans 6.x was much faster. So I would like to explain the situation. For some people, who don't know, Instant Rename action and Rename Refactoring  can look like one action. But it's not true, even if  both actions use the same shortcut (CTRL + R). NetBeans 6.x contained only Instant Rename action (speaking about PHP support), which we can mark as very simple rename refactoring through one file. From NetBeans 7.0 the Instant Rename action works only in "non public" context. It means that this action is used for fast renaming variables that has local context like inside a method, or for renaming private methods and fields that can not be used outside of the scope, where they are declared. From user point of view these two action can be simply recognized. When is after CTRL+R called Instant Rename action, then the identifier is surrounded with rectangle and you can rename it directly in the file. It's fast and simple, also the usages of this identifier are renamed in the same time as you write. The picture below shows Instant Rename action for $message identifier, that is visible only in the print_test method and due this after CTRL+R is called Instant Rename. In NetBeans 7.0, there was added Rename Refactoring that is called for public identifiers. It means for identifiers that could be used in other files. If you press CTRL+R shortcut when the caret is inside $hello identifier from the picture above, NetBeans recognizes that $hello is declared / used in a global context and calls the Rename Refactoring that brings a dialog to change the name of the identifier. From this dialog you have to preview suggested changes, through pressing Preview button and then execute the refactoring through Do Refactoring button. Yes, it's more complicated from user point of view than Instant Rename, but in Rename Refactoring NetBeans can change more files at once. It should be  the developer responsibility to decide whether the suggested changes are right and the refactoring can be executed or in some files original name should be kept. Someone can argue that he doesn't use $hello variable in any other file so Instant Rename could be used in such case. Yes it's true, but in such case NetBeans has to know all usages of all identifiers and keep this informations up to date during editing a file. I'm sure that this is not possible due to the performance problems, mainly for big projects. So the usages are computed after pressing the Preview button. And why is the Refactor button always disabled in the Rename dialog and user has to always go through the preview phase? NetBeans has API and SPI for implementing refactoring actions and this dialog is a part of this infrastructure. If you rename an identifier for example in Java, the Refactor buttons is enabled, but Java is strongly type language and you can be almost in 99% sure that the IDE will suggest the right results. In PHP as a dynamic language, we can not be sure, what NetBeans finds is only a "guess". This is why NetBeans pushes developers to preview the changes for PHP rename. I hope that I have explain it clearly. I'm open to any discussion. What I have described above is situation in NetBeans 7.0, 7.0.1 and probably it will be also in NetBeans 7.1, because there is no plan to change it. Please write your opinion here.

  Read the article

• Reconciling the Boy Scout Rule and Opportunistic Refactoring with code reviews

  - by t0x1n

  I am a great believer in the Boy Scout Rule: Always check a module in cleaner than when you checked it out." No matter who the original author was, what if we always made some effort, no matter how small, to improve the module. What would be the result? I think if we all followed that simple rule, we'd see the end of the relentless deterioration of our software systems. Instead, our systems would gradually get better and better as they evolved. We'd also see teams caring for the system as a whole, rather than just individuals caring for their own small little part. I am also a great believer in the related idea of Opportunistic Refactoring: Although there are places for some scheduled refactoring efforts, I prefer to encourage refactoring as an opportunistic activity, done whenever and wherever code needs to cleaned up - by whoever. What this means is that at any time someone sees some code that isn't as clear as it should be, they should take the opportunity to fix it right there and then - or at least within a few minutes Particularly note the following excerpt from the refactoring article: I'm wary of any development practices that cause friction for opportunistic refactoring ... My sense is that most teams don't do enough refactoring, so it's important to pay attention to anything that is discouraging people from doing it. To help flush this out be aware of any time you feel discouraged from doing a small refactoring, one that you're sure will only take a minute or two. Any such barrier is a smell that should prompt a conversation. So make a note of the discouragement and bring it up with the team. At the very least it should be discussed during your next retrospective. Where I work, there is one development practice that causes heavy friction - Code Review (CR). Whenever I change anything that's not in the scope of my "assignment" I'm being rebuked by my reviewers that I'm making the change harder to review. This is especially true when refactoring is involved, since it makes "line by line" diff comparison difficult. This approach is the standard here, which means opportunistic refactoring is seldom done, and only "planned" refactoring (which is usually too little, too late) takes place, if at all. I claim that the benefits are worth it, and that 3 reviewers will work a little harder (to actually understand the code before and after, rather than look at the narrow scope of which lines changed - the review itself would be better due to that alone) so that the next 100 developers reading and maintaining the code will benefit. When I present this argument my reviewers, they say they have no problem with my refactoring, as long as it's not in the same CR. However I claim this is a myth: (1) Most of the times you only realize what and how you want to refactor when you're in the midst of your assignment. As Martin Fowler puts it: As you add the functionality, you realize that some code you're adding contains some duplication with some existing code, so you need to refactor the existing code to clean things up... You may get something working, but realize that it would be better if the interaction with existing classes was changed. Take that opportunity to do that before you consider yourself done. (2) Nobody is going to look favorably at you releasing "refactoring" CRs you were not supposed to do. A CR has a certain overhead and your manager doesn't want you to "waste your time" on refactoring. When it's bundled with the change you're supposed to do, this issue is minimized. The issue is exacerbated by Resharper, as each new file I add to the change (and I can't know in advance exactly which files would end up changed) is usually littered with errors and suggestions - most of which are spot on and totally deserve fixing. The end result is that I see horrible code, and I just leave it there. Ironically, I feel that fixing such code not only will not improve my standings, but actually lower them and paint me as the "unfocused" guy who wastes time fixing things nobody cares about instead of doing his job. I feel bad about it because I truly despise bad code and can't stand watching it, let alone call it from my methods! Any thoughts on how I can remedy this situation ?

  Read the article

• WebCenter Customer Spotlight: Ancestry.com

  - by me

  Author: Peter Reiser - Social Business Evangelist, Oracle WebCenter  Solution SummaryAncestry.com Inc is the largest for-profit genealogy company in the world and it operates a network of genealogical and historical record websites focused on the U.S. and nine foreign countries, develops and markets genealogical software, and offers a wide array of genealogical related services. As of June 2012, the company provided access to more than 10 billion records, 38 million family trees, and 2 million paying subscribers. Their main business challenges were to improve time to market and agility to respond quickly to fast changing Internet waves while integrating with their existing content (4 PetaByte) and legacy systems. Ancestry.com implemented Oracle WebCenter Sites as their Web Experience Management System for their landing pages and marketing micro sites, added dynamic sections to their existing websites and integrated the existing content and legacy systems through web services. The Ancestry.com landing pages and marketing sites are now managed by the business team without any involvement of engineering resources. Managed content can quickly be added to existing pages without having to refactor the whole page and existing content (4 PetaBytes)  is now served trough Oracle WebCenter Sites without having to migrate from existing systems. Company OverviewAncestry.com Inc is a publicly traded Internet company (NASDAQ: ACOM) based in Provo, Utah, USA. The largest for-profit genealogy company in the world, it operates a network of genealogical and historical record websites focused on the U.S. and nine foreign countries, develops and markets genealogical software, and offers a wide array of genealogical related services. As of June 2012, the company provided access to more than 10 billion records, 38 million family trees, and 2 million paying subscribers. Business ChallengesAncestry main business challenge was to respond quickly to fast changing Internet waves.  Product marketing could not change Web site content without going through development. They needed dedicated developers just to support their marketing efforts. Technical Requirements Support current systems and environments - ASP.NET, MVC.NET, Java, JSP, PHP Scalable and manageable for a world wide network Marketing Requirements Easy to enter content – Without having a degree in HTML Scheduling of content – When is content visible to users Product Requirements Easy to manage content – See when content is out-of-date Rotation of content – Producing new content as old content expires Solution DeployedAncestry implemented  Oracle WebCenter Sites as their Web Experience Management System to manage their landing pages and marketing micro sites. This sites are fully managed by their business team without involvement of any engineering resources. The integration with their existing Web sites is done through Spot Management which allows the ability to add dynamic content to certain sections of a web page. The dynamic content is managed by  Oracle WebCenter Sites. The integration with the existing content (4 PetaBytes!) is done trough  a custom content provider interface which allows to mix existing content with content from  Oracle WebCenter Sites. Business ResultsAncestry.com has achieved following impressive business results: Landing pages and marketing sites are now managed by the business team without any involvement of engineering resources Managed content can quickly be added to existing pages without having to refactor the whole page Provide access to existing content (4 PetaBytes)  without having to migrate from existing systems Additional Information Ancestry Webcast Oracle WebCenter Sites

  Read the article

• What are they buying &ndash; work or value?

  - by Jamie Kurtz

  When was the last time you ordered a pizza like this: “I want the high school kid in the back to do the following… make a big circle with some dough, curl up the edges, then put some sauce on it using a small ladle, then I want him to take a handful of shredded cheese from the metal container and spread it over the circle and sauce, then finally I want the kid to place 36 pieces of pepperoni over the top of the cheese” ?? Probably never. My typical pizza order usually goes more like this: “I want a large pepperoni pizza”. In the world of software development, we try so hard to be all things agile. We: Write lots of unit tests We refactor our code, then refactor it some more We avoid writing lengthy requirements documents We try to keep processes to a minimum, and give developers freedom And we are proud of our constantly shifting focus (i.e. we’re “responding to change”) Yet, after all this, we fail to really lean and capitalize on one of agile’s main differentiators (from the twelve principles behind the Agile Manifesto): “Working software is the primary measure of progress.” That is, we foolishly commit to delivering tasks instead of features and bug fixes. Like my pizza example above, we fall into the trap of signing contracts that bind us to doing tasks – rather than delivering working software. And the biggest problem here… by far the most troubling outcome… is that we don’t let working software be a major force in all the work we do. When teams manage to ruthlessly focus on the end product, it puts them on the path of true agile. It doesn’t let them accidentally write too much documentation, or spend lots of time and money on processes and fancy tools. It forces early testing that reveals problems in the feature or bug fix. And it forces lots and lots of customer interaction.  Without that focus on the end product as your deliverable… by committing to a list of tasks instead of a list features and bug fixes… you are doomed to NOT be agile. You will end up just doing stuff, spending time on the keyboard, burning time on timesheets. Doing tasks doesn’t force you to minimize documentation. It makes it much harder to respond to change. And it will eventually force you and the client into contract haggling. Because the customer isn’t really paying you to do stuff. He’s ultimately paying for features and bug fixes. And when the customer doesn’t get what they want, responding with “well, look at the contract - we did all the tasks we committed to” doesn’t typically generate referrals or callbacks. In short, if you’re trying to deliver real value to the customer by going agile, you will most certainly fail if all you commit to is a list of things you’re going to do. Give agile what it needs by committing to features and bug fixes – not a list of ToDo items. So the next time you are writing up a contract, remember that the customer should be buying this: Not this:

  Read the article

• Question on Scala Closure (From "Programming in Scala")

  - by Ekkmanz

  I don't understand why authors said that Code Listing 9.1 from "Programming in Scala" use closure. In chapter 9, they show how to refactor code into more less duplicated form, from this original code: object FileMatcher { private def filesHere = (new java.io.File(".")).listFiles def filesEnding(query: String) = for (file <- filesHere; if file.getName.endsWith(query)) yield file def filesContaining(query: String) = for (file <- filesHere; if file.getName.contains(query)) yield file def filesRegex(query: String) = for (file <- filesHere; if file.getName.matches(query)) yield file } To the second version: object FileMatcher { private def filesHere = (new java.io.File(".")).listFiles def filesMatching(query: String, matcher: (String, String) => Boolean) = { for (file <- filesHere; if matcher(file.getName, query)) yield file } def filesEnding(query: String) = filesMatching(query, _.endsWith(_)) def filesContaining(query: String) = filesMatching(query, _.contains(_)) def filesRegex(query: String) = filesMatching(query, _.matches(_)) } Which they said that there is no use of closure here. Now I understand until this point. However they introduced the use of closure to refactor even some more, shown in Listing 9.1: object FileMatcher { private def filesHere = (new java.io.File(".")).listFiles private def filesMatching(matcher: String => Boolean) = for (file <- filesHere; if matcher(file.getName)) yield file def filesEnding(query: String) = filesMatching(_.endsWith(query)) def filesContaining(query: String) = filesMatching(_.contains(query)) def filesRegex(query: String) = filesMatching(_.matches(query)) } Now they said that query is a free variable but I don't really understand why they said so? Since ""query"" seems to be passed from top method down to string matching function explicitly.

  Read the article

• Taking "do the simplest thing that could possible work" too far in TDD: testing for a file-name kno

  - by Support - multilanguage SO

  For TDD you have to Create a test that fail Do the simplest thing that could possible work to pass the test Add more variants of the test and repeat Refactor when a pattern emerge With this approach you're supposing to cover all the cases ( that comes to my mind at least) but I'm wonder if am I being too strict here and if it is possible to "think ahead" some scenarios instead of simple discover them. For instance, I'm processing a file and if it doesn't conform to a certain format I am to throw an InvalidFormatException So my first test was: @Test void testFormat(){ // empty doesn't do anything nor throw anything processor.validate("empty.txt"); try { processor.validate("invalid.txt"); assert false: "Should have thrown InvalidFormatException"; } catch( InvalidFormatException ife ) { assert "Invalid format".equals( ife.getMessage() ); } } I run it and it fails because it doesn't throw an exception. So the next thing that comes to my mind is: "Do the simplest thing that could possible work", so I : public void validate( String fileName ) throws InvalidFormatException { if(fileName.equals("invalid.txt") { throw new InvalidFormatException("Invalid format"); } } Doh!! ( although the real code is a bit more complicated, I found my self doing something like this several times ) I know that I have to eventually add another file name and other test that would make this approach impractical and that would force me to refactor to something that makes sense ( which if I understood correctly is the point of TDD, to discover the patterns the usage unveils ) but: Q: am I taking too literal the "Do the simplest thing..." stuff?

  Read the article

• Invoking WCF service from Javascript

  - by KhanS

  I have a asp.net web application, and have some java script code in it. While calling the service I am getting the exception Service1 is undefined. Below is my code. Service: namespace WebApplication2 { // NOTE: You can use the "Rename" command on the "Refactor" menu to change the interface name "IService1" in both code and config file together. [ServiceContract(Namespace="WCFServices")] public interface IService1 { [OperationContract] string HelloWorld(); } } Implementation namespace WebApplication2 { // NOTE: You can use the "Rename" command on the "Refactor" menu to change the class name "Service1" in code, svc and config file together. [ServiceBehavior(IncludeExceptionDetailInFaults = true)] [AspNetCompatibilityRequirements(RequirementsMode = AspNetCompatibilityRequirementsMode.Allowed)] public class Service1 : IService1 { public string HelloWorld() { return "Hello world from service"; } } } ASPX page: <asp:Content ID="BodyContent" runat="server" ContentPlaceHolderID="MainContent"> <asp:ScriptManager ID="QNAScriptManager" runat="server"> <Services> <asp:ServiceReference Path="~/Service1.svc" /> </Services> <Scripts> <asp:ScriptReference Path="~/Scripts/Questions.js" /> </Scripts> </asp:ScriptManager> </asp:Content> Java Script var ServiceProxy; function pageLoad() { ServiceProxy = new Service1(); ServiceProxy.set_defaultSucceededCallback(SucceededCallback); } function GetString() { ServiceProxy.HelloWorld(); } function SucceededCallback(result, userContext, methodName) { var RsltElem = document.getElementById("Results"); RsltElem.innerHTML = result + " from " + methodName + "."; alert("Msg received from service"); }

  Read the article

• Automatically add links to class source files under a specified directory of another project in Visu

  - by Binary255

  I want to share some class source files between two projects in Visual Studio 2008. I can't create a project for the common parts and reference it (see my comment if you are curious to why). I've managed to share some source files, but it could be a lot more neat. I've created a test solution called Commonality. The Solution Explorer of the Commonality solution which contains project One and Two: What I like: All class files under the Common folder of project One are automatically added to project Two by linking. It's mostly the same as if I would have chosen Add / Existing Item... : Add As Link on each new class source file. It's clear that these files have been linked in. The shortcut arrow symbol is marking each file icon. What I do not like: The file and folder tree structure under Common of project One isn't included. It's all flat. The linked source files are shown under the project root of project Two. It would look much less cluttered if they were located under Common like in project One. The file tree structure of the Commonality solution which contains project One and Two: $ tree /F /A Folder PATH listing for volume Cystem Volume serial number is 0713370 1337:F6A4 C:. | Commonality.sln | +---One | | One.cs | | One.csproj | | | +---bin | | \---Debug | | One.vshost.exe | | One.vshost.exe.manifest | | | +---Common | | | Common.cs | | | CommonTwo.cs | | | | | \---SubCommon | | CommonThree.cs | | | +---obj | | \---Debug | | +---Refactor | | \---TempPE | \---Properties | AssemblyInfo.cs | \---Two | Two.cs | Two.csproj | Two.csproj.user | Two.csproj~ | +---bin | \---Debug +---obj | \---Debug | +---Refactor | \---TempPE \---Properties AssemblyInfo.cs And the relevant part of project Two's project file Two.csproj: <ItemGroup> <Compile Include="..\One\Common\**\*.cs"> </Compile> <Compile Include="Two.cs" /> <Compile Include="Properties\AssemblyInfo.cs" /> </ItemGroup> How do I address what I do not like, while keeping what I like?

  Read the article

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